okay good evening this is a regular meeting of the Princeton zoning Board of adjustment being held electronically via zoom on June 26 2024 at 7:30 p.m. 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 sunshine notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of adjustment such such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet town topics the times Trentonian and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on the June 21st 2024 and has been posted to the municipal website www Princeton NJ goov pursuant to the extension of the ongoing state of emergency by executive order 292 in accordance with the emergency remote public meetings protocol for local public bodies to conduct a public meeting without physical attendance by members of the public notice that during this extension of the state of emergency all regular and special meetings of the Princeton's Z Board of adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet town topics and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April 2020 such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and on the Princeton website and and ares are or is to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet to topics the times Trentonian Comcast media and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton notices have been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex okay laaia can you call the RO Miss Chen here miss Coulson here Mr ly here Mr Shriver here Mr tenal Mr Stein here Miss Donna yes chairman Cohen here thank you you're welcome okay um we have um three Re three resolutions this evening the first is a uh a resolution of commendations for Jim davich a uh dedicated uh Zoning Board member who has um moved out of Princeton still in the area but not in the town anymore um does somebody want Derek would you like to read that Commendation yes sir um resolution of commendation and appreciation to James davage for service to the Princeton Zoning Board of adjustment whereas James davage has served as a member of the Princeton zoning Board of adjustment from November 2017 to May 2022 or 24 excuse me and whereas Mr davage has provided exemplary service contributing his time and knowledge in carrying out his duties to the board and whereas the board wishes to acknowledge and thank Mr davage for his service now therefore be it resolved that the Princeton zoning Board of adjustment hereby commends and thanks James davage for his service as a member of the prin Zoning Board of adjustment be it further resolved that this resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption and I guess there shall be a a motion um in a second so moved thank you thank you second thank you okay Claudia do we do this by individual affirmation okay cloria can you call the role please miss Chen yes Miss Coulson yes Mr Floy yes Mrs Shriver yes Mr Stein yes Miss Donna yes German Cohen yes thank you thank you Jim very nice okay um our second resolution of the evening is case number z23 d433 8 Valley Road Block um 701 Lot 36 in the R6 tzone um the resolution was in your packets um if someone if there are any questions please ask them if not if someone would like to make a motion Mr col before the board acts on it there's one clarification that the applicants Council has asked for uh it's the last sentence of M rina's testimony which is paragraph nine that's page four what they would like that sentence to read is M rabina further testified that while the setback is 15 feet from the closest point of the proposed home to the property line the setback to the curb along Mount Lucas Road would be approximately 30 feet so there was a lot of uh questioning and testimony if you recall um I I think that's consistent with her testimony so that's the revision that they have asked for okay I do remember that as well okay so we have a motion and a second and so Claudia would you uh call the role I don't think you have a motion on a second oh we don't that was a motion for the last one I'm sorry okay would someone like to make a motion on this case I'll move to approve okay thank you do we have a second n seconds okay thank you George all right Claudia can you call the role please Claudia you're muted I'm sorry okay can you call the role please miss Chen yes Miss Coulson yes Mr Stein yes Mr Cohen I I can't vote I wasn't oh yeah I do I was here for that that's right yes yes I was here so last week did Mr Floyd didn't he vote in favor oppos two I mean there there were two actions we took and I oppos One You're think you're thinking of the next one Michael no the next one had two steps to it now this one had two steps he opposed the uh C oh I'm sorry yes got it got it you're correct okay all right I say correct do we have to do the next action now well it's one resolution so I mean the D variance is the important one without that they can't proceed right right correct but it's I don't I don't really think it's necessary because we did combine these and it's one resolution covering all of it so Mr Floy as a yes or do I don't Karen yes sure I think that's fine Mr Floyd yes thank you okay so we have one more resolution case uh Z24 d431 [Music] um 850 Great Road Block 3501 lot is that 01 I can't read it I'm sorry 1.01 2.01 2.11 and 2.12 right okay thank you um so a couple of uh minor or Corrections anyway uh just to clarify the lot numbers are 1.01 2.01 and then it's not 2.11 and 2.12 it's then it's 11 and 12 so I'm going to make that correction uh correct the spelling of Miss hando's name it's supposed to be h a d i b o d make that correction uh the applicant is asked that we make clear this is uh during Mr Rei's testimony he was the second planner that you heard from at the second hearing that he made reference to What's called the medich standard he did which has to do with the site being particularly suited and positive and negative criteria uh they've also ask that we make clear that when the resolution says the applicant can operate the camp this summer it's the summer of 2024 they've asked that we clarify that the only exterior changes are temporary camp and directional signage um that aside from the reasons that were cited about why they chose the site meaning that was already developed as a school they used as a school that it was also child friendly facilities at least that was their opinion and then finally they would ask that I believe in the resolution I had the applicant returned to the board no later than April they suggested spring 2025 instead of April 2025 I'm assuming that way if for some reason they missed the April agenda they would still be in accordance with the resolution so those are the those are the proposed changes to the resolution okay are there any questions on the resolution from any of the board members if not someone would like to make a motion so moved thank you second anyone I'll second it okay any questions on the motion okay laia can you call the role please miss Chen yes Miss Coulson yes Mr Floy yes Mrs Shriver yes Mr Stein yes thank you okay good okay um so are first case this evening is case number Z24 d482 uh 289 Meer stone block 8 gosh loock 8204 lock 8 in the r21 zone r2t Zone yes sir okay um Derek can you oh first of all Claudia Claudia Karen is there is there are the notices in order no they're not and in fact it's my understanding that this application is going to have to be Ren noticed that's correct Derek isn't it yes ma'am okay so we're going to take that off the agenda tonight and uh when the applicant Ren notices then we can get it on another agenda okay all right moving right along our next case is going to be um Z24 d414 um 68 Lee Avenue Lot 8904 lot 26 or block 8904 26 again Karen the notice is in order yes the noticing is in order the board has jurisdiction tonight Mr chairman is 65 65 Lee I'm sorry I don't have enough light in here I'm sorry okay sorry okay um Derek can you please read your memo Derek I'll just swear you in you swear airm your testimony this evening will be truthful yes ma'am I do thank you thank you thank you chairman Cohen um hardik and Minal Patel are the owners and applicants of 65 Lee Avenue it's located in the R9 District in the former Township they are seeking a floor area variance pursuant to njsa 40 col 55 d-7 D4 uh and related bulk variances to permit the conversion of a non-complying two family structure to a single family dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit there's no record of zoning approval of the existing two family dwelling um and the existing structure does not comply uh with the the floor area ratio uh requirements the subject property is located in the Witherspoon his Jackson historic district and is subject to review by the Princeton historic preservation commission property is non-complying with regard to the required 6500 SQ foot lot area the existing 3,000 in five square feet uh the lot width is non require nonconforming uh requirements 40 feet the existing is 30 and that is the same with the frontage requirement is 40 existing is 30 the existing hous is non complying with regard to F the maximum permitted is 54.4 and the existing is 65.4 n% does not comply with the uh smaller side yard setback of 5 feet um the existing is 0.7 feet and it does not comply with the required 15 foot combined side yard set back the existing is 10.7 and the uh parking setback requirement is three and it does not comply uh whereas the existing is zero um the applicant is proposing to perform interior alterations to create a plus or minus 750 SQ foot two bedroom accessory dwelling unit on the first floor and a three-bedroom hello sorry um applicant is proposing to perform interior alterations to create a uh plus or minus 750 foot two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit on the first floor and a three-bedroom uh 12200 foot apartment located on the front portion of the uh first floor and the entire second floor of the existing dwelling no changes other than window replacement and removal of some existing window openings are proposed no site work is proposed some of the existing windows will be replaced and uh existing openings will be closed tax records reflect uh two Kitchens on the property dating back to 196 six there is the note on the property record card of a conversion to a two family and a rental uh two-bedroom apartment around the same time staff were unable to locate any formal zoning or building department approval the proposed Adu complies with the size and room count requirements for the Adu ordinance the plans for the Adu have been um revised from the original submission reducing the habitable number of rooms from 3 to two um accessory dwelling units are required to have a parking space when are three habitable rooms revised plan does not require parking space um section 10B 244 L uh controls the location of accessory dwelling units accept as set forth here in and in subsection 10B 255 c3h above a detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the bulk requirements pertaining to accessory structures for the zoning District in which it is located except that in no case shall the distance between a detached accessory dwelling unit and the habitable portion of a single family house be less than 5T um the foregoing notwithstanding Aus may be constructed on any undersized lot in existence as of July 1st 2020 provided to propose development complies with all other applicable bulk requirements for the district in which the property is located um the subject lot is non-complying in the existing house does not comply with the uh for area ratio the construction of the ad requires the following variances the F variance is required the maximum permitted is 54.4 the proposed and existing is 65.4 n um the bulk Varian is required uh smaller sidey yard setback requirement is five the existing is 0.7 feet and the um combined sidey yard setback requirements 15 the existing is 10.7 um and the applicant has requested consideration under the C1 criteria if you have any questions I'd be glad to uh address those that's that's my memo and I do note that Elizabeth Kim is here and uh the historic preservation commission did Issue a memo on this so if there are not any questions I will hand off to Elizabeth for her to to talk about the hpc's report Elizabeth please I do have one question Derek you referred to the law was changed recently and it said something about the B requirements could you repeat that you're on mute I'm sorry I didn't hear the second part of your question could you repeat the sentence or two you gave about the bulk requirements part of the law uh section P 10B d244 L um controls the location of accessory dwelling units it says except as set forth here in and in the subsection 10B 255 c3h uh above a detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the bulk requirements pertaining to the accessory structure for the zoning District in which it's located except that in no case s the distance between the detached accessory dwelling unit and the habitable portion of the principal single family dwelling be less than 5T um since the Adu is in the house I am considering the fact that it is only uh 0.7 feet away from the property line as a as a variance even though it's part of the the house so the the the variance is triggered by the conversion to the Adu um that's I'm sorry but I don't understand why that's an Adu why isn't that just an apartment inist house because an Adu can be located either within a single family dwelling or as a detached um separate Adu which would need to be 5 feet away from the house and then there's other bulk requirements depending on the size and height of the accessory dwelling init so they are permitted to be in a house but they're still limited to three habitable rooms uh 800 square F feet or 25% of the area of the house whichever is greater so um they're still permitted they're just uh you know it's it's not a separate unit all on Standalone thank you yes sir Elizabeth I just want to swear you in you swear or firm your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you um so this application was reviewed by the HPC chair and myself and um because of the Minimus changes to the exterior of the building which as Mr Bridger talked about were some replacement windows which are located in the farther side of the building and because the Adu conversion um is not visually impacted from the exterior of the building we found found that there was no objection to what the um applicant was proposing as far as historic preservation goes and um I'm happy to answer any questions that the that the board may have on this board members any questions of Miss Kim okay thank you Elizabeth okay um I believe Mr Kennedy it is your turn thank you Mr chairman um uh if we could Claudia um hardic Patel the applicant is an attendee good him over as a panelist um and I'll I'll start my introduction while that's happening but um first uh thank you all uh for hearing us here tonight I thank Mr Bridger and Miss Kim for their uh uh input HBC for their review and approval of this and and Derek as always for uh setting the stage one clarification U from dereck's memo before we start um while he did I think note correctly uh the ultimate number of rooms in that you know the Adu proposed does not require it's a parking space I just want to be clear that the first floor Adu apartment as we go through um is actually just one bedroom so it's two habitable rooms and and one bedroom we had previously uh provided some plans and there was some question about what made up the rooms and just to make it absolutely clear um we removed uh one of the first floor bedrooms so that the ad was really just a one bedroom uh unit uh just to make sure that there was no need to to discuss the parking issue that would be triggered if if another room down there and it would have been a small one would have counted as as a room so they ultimately combined uh kind of everything into one you know efficiency Suite or excuse me one uh kind of open living area with one bedroom um now with with that um uh hopefully this is a rather simple application uh one admittedly that's a little complicated uh by one the reality of the neighborhoods with uh severely or even comically undersized Lots um what you'll hear tonight uh is an apple b property um as the tax record show that had previously been set up as a two family um uh on a non-conforming lot uh instead of kind of refreshing those approvals to have what was uh a top and bottom two family uh the applicant proposed an otherwise conforming I.E smaller one-bedroom uh Adu on the first floor well we'll go through and show you that this has had you know the two meters uh for electricity two meters for water for for sewer the tax records that show that this had been treated as multiple units for quite some time but apparently going back to 60s never quite approved so rather than this being uh kind of a a use variance application and trying to prove which we never really can fully that this was a pre-existing non-conforming use the applicant decided to to convert the first floor into an otherwise conforming IE smaller uh Adu unit that triggers or or kind of cures you know some of the issues that would have perhaps happen with the two family in that you know additional parking spaces needed uh and and while this um I think we'll we'll see that history shows this this functioned quite nicely uh in that uh two family configuration uh the simplified version that complies with Princeton's Adu rules um simplifies it uh even further um the variances that we're talking about are all things that are there uh things that have been there since uh the property was built uh as you will show you every piece of this building minus the absolute center of it was and always is inside the setbacks the floor area uh ratio is not being changed that's how this house was has been built for some time and uh by altering the use like this it does kind of require us to reup those variances uh for the bulk variances the setbacks that Mr bridg went through we believe these are your classic C1 hardship there will show you there's no way to get more land from Neighbors they're all comically undersized uh for the lot you know about half of what uh this Zone requires uh as well so there's no relief we could get there this and and to again to be clear uh as as you heard from Miss Kim there's really nothing externally other than some kind of cleanup new windows essentially being done on the outside the envelope is not changing the size of the building is not changing in fact the prior use as a full two family is being kind of shrunk down so that it's a one family with an Adu which we we feel is a little less intense doesn't require independent parking for example for the second first floor unit um and and makes for uh we hope uh a smaller list of of approvals and things for the board uh to Think Through um I'd like to we do have the property owner um uh and recent purchaser uh uh Mr uh hardic Patel here uh if I could uh ask him to uh if he's been moved over um oh there we are sorry we have both the Patel here um if we could uh ask um that they be sworn in so we can go through our presentation Mr Mrs Patel do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful yes yes thank you all right so if you could briefly introduce yourselves uh uh to the board um and I give a little bit of your background and and your thinking and what you were hoping to do with this uh property sure um my name is arik Patel and um next to me is my wife Minal who is a co- applicant um I'm a senior manager in cyber security working for a management consulting firm and Min hi I'm minel I'm a physical therapist uh I have been working for marvik rehab and um I had been working for marvik rehab for almost 14 plus years since marvick was in Princeton and that's how I think we kind of have a very close connection to the Princeton area um just a brief background I mean we we've been a resident of greesboro Township which is the next town over for over 16 years now and we've always desired to retire in Princeton um once our children finish uh finish their schooling they are currently 12 and 13 years of age uh we purchased 65 Le Avenue in July of last year with the intention to restore it back to its original state of two family dwelling um primarily uh intentions there were um my mother lives with us and would love for her to take the ground floor uh which is the smaller Adu in this shape and form while me and my wife uh can live on the second floor um down the road but since our purchase we've certainly we've worked with our architect then fortunado as well as Ryan to kind of work through the process here and then uh certainly we've renovated most of the Interior or proposed uh to do so while the exterior is pretty much U unchanged so I mean having said that Ryan I think I'll hand it over to you all right um don't don't go far um if if you could um we have one set of uh exhibits I'd like to share and and Mark uh as as A1 this evening if that's right um so uh hard if you could um we're looking at here this is the uh facade of of the home on 65 Lake yes that's the front view now moving on slide two uh that blue arrow kind of points to uh where your property is in the uh the R9 Zone formerly a part of the township that is good yes all right now zooming in a little closer uh that's the property there on on leav showing the um surrounding uh neighborhood of similarly sized Lots yes zoom in a little further you've got your home uh there as well again noting the size of all the Lots in this neighborhood with a few exceptions are all seem to be this size um next uh Miss Kim solar Thunder but uh appreciative of HP 's review and and approval of uh this project you know that the this this change does not uh impact things there so thank you thank you her uh and HBC again uh for that so hard you you guys purchased this property um uh believing it to be a a two family can you tell us a little bit more about we're going to go through some of the things that you saw and some of the records that that show that so uh here this is the tax record and and part of Mr bridger's um memorandum showing the that this had been uh a two family uh going back to the uh I guess the 60s is that right yes no and and I'll be careful here but I know you've talked to some of the the neighbors that's I guess consistent with with what you've kind of found in your own research you want to talk about that a little bit uh sure Ryan yeah so I mean I spoke with uh one of the Neighbors which shares the property lot with us uh 65 Lee Avenue uh her name is Mara cter um and I mean she's been a resident of that property over 55 years um and yeah I mean she confirmed that this was at some point uh used by a mother and a daughter and they had two different kitchens one kitchen on the second floor as well as one one on the ground and they had used it as a two two family dwelling now and and as you're working with architect for the and and Renovations you you kind of found all the the pieces of of the kitchens and the plumbing and and those type of things yes it was on the second floor however we are yeah I mean that is now being removed but yeah now again um looking I guess on the right that's a picture of the side of the house so uh you can kind of see it there but are there they're physically they're separately metered for water sewer and gas and utilities is that is that right yes that's the electric one you're looking at but yes two and so uh and then New Jersey American the water provider has when when he bought this there were two separate accounts and two separate bills and two separate meters that's correct yes uh and I guess the same thing uh on the left this is the I believe that's the Princeton's um sewer records for you to pay the sewer bill so you get two separate sewer bills and uh I guess there's a note there that it's a compound meter what does that mean that that that it's a one meter that supports two separate accounts accounts yes but it's it goes through most of my uh mortgage application so I don't get specific bills but yeah you have it right there they take care they take your money and take care of that for you yes so is there anything that you've seen in buying this surg research that would show that it that it wasn't a two family sounds kind a silly question but no I mean in fact we are showing the electric meters we had similarly gas meters as well uh for this property it was on the other side but again similar picture it was in the basement we had two different gas meters uh certainly two unique bills for that as well but yep psng has basically four meters on premes um so let's just kind of talk through I know sometimes the board is um not that interested in what happens inside a building but here it's particularly kind of relevant just to show um what the uh how the two floors are um are proposed to be configured and broken up to allow for the um Adu and the second floor so on the right here I guess that's the front door the front door would go to the main um the main primary home is that correct the the Green Arrow yes and so on the first floor that front living room area and steps that's part of the upstairs main unit yes that's right that blue arrow I guess both in left and right that's that side door that's been there for the second is that right yes that's existing but yeah that opens up into the kitchen of the smaller unit which is the Adu now just noting that for everyone that you know to comply for an Adu the the door of the Adu where whether it's an accessory building separate or inside the main home has to um face differently it can't face the street so this had always been set up that way as well which kind of perfect to of recast the the second unit uh as an Adu um uh next again we've got the uh these are the up and downstairs floor plan that uh Architects proposed so I guess on the the orange outline on the left is the first floor and the right is the second floor took me a while to get this was that that correct yes that is correct um and so the first floor and this is I guess that clarification that we had from Mr bridger's original report um but uh on the left you've entering in the Adu entrance you've got the kitchen and and by the way was that I guess that's where a kitchen had really always been yes that is the place for the ground floor kitchen that's uh and then behind that a combined living dining area which counts as a room and then a small bedroom in the back that would be the the second habitable room M all right and then uh again upstairs this kitchen area anything new about that that's where I guess a kitchen has always been from your investigation uh it was in fact in the back uh right behind the bathroom but uh yeah I mean right now we are proposing it to bring it right above the kitchen downstairs got it okay so when this in this prior two family configuration the second kitchen was in this back area actually yes and just another note that for the Adu the the first floor you know rather than being a full unit for a two family with two outle rooms uh does not require uh its own parking space uh next hard mean often at this point of an application I'd be asking you if you asked your neighbors if they wanted to sell you any land um but uh in this case uh fortunately or unfortunately for you and for them uh uh you're the blue lot right and the red lots are ones that are also non-conforming and unfortunately or fortunately you know couldn't offer couldn't sell you any lands to to cure the undersized lot situation that this lot and you know all of the almost all of them in your neighborhood have I'll also note on the left this red box you can see the outline of the existing home uh and this red box here is the actual part of the lot that complies with the uh setbacks and the home has been in this location uh likely since it obviously since it was constructed predating things but there's almost no way to build a lot and certainly the existing structure which is not being proposed to be altered uh from any kind external way other than the window replacements um unfortunately can't comply and has never been able to with those setbacks um I think I guess in in in summary here's our our our bulk table as Mr Bridger went through all of the existing variances that are I'll use the word refresh but ultimately need to be regranted here on a on a C1 or again for the floor area basis because of this recasting um these are all existing conditions they are unchanged by this proposal we're not um we don't have the ability to to to move the walls we're not proposing to change the size or or or scale or B of the building uh in any way and these are the existing uh conditions um I'll also note um that while you you hear many cases of perhaps changes to undersize Lots in existing conditions or expansions this one's a little unique in that this previously was uh a to we hope that we you know perhaps not shown enough to to to claim and wouldn't even plead it this way or or apply this way Pro show a non-conforming use that's really hard to show that you know from prior to zoning that that it's always been that way um without abandonment U for the course of 50 60 years um admittedly we obviously don't have that information but we do have information showing that it has been uh in a two family configuration going back to 1965 uh with lots of modern evidence that the town has essentially granted or acknowledg but whether it's the sewer uh water or utility items showing that it was configured that way uh and and showing uniquely that perhaps other um undersiz lot conversions for example that this um this property having previously been a two family can accommodate the Adu use which is almost the same as a two family just less intense uh less bedrooms uh not uh no need under the parking under the ordinance for example uh to accommodate uh parking uh other than what is what is required the two spaces uh for for the main unit um with that we tried to keep this one simple obviously we're available to answer any uh questions uh I'm happy uh after if there are any questions to summarize again you know our our understanding of the existing variances and I'll remind you technically since um this property has already been non-conforming for floor area um I don't want to lose the fact that there is technically a recasting or a refreshing of that floor area variance we're not looking to expand this this building is not getting bigger um but even just in the existing state um by this conversion it requires us to look at the uh floor area variant which I think technically means we do need five of you to to hopefully uh follow along with us uh this evening rather than just the majority for the the bulk Varian is notwithstanding and these all being pre-existing issues so that again happy to uh to answer any questions that uh uh anyone on the board uh has this evening Mr Kennedy you would like this say exhibit A1 correct yes that is correct all right thank you can you uh take your screen down there Mr Kennedy thank abely so uh board members um are there any questions of the applicant or the attorney I have two questions Michael go ahead go right ahead Steve okay two quick questions one is and I I just don't understand what would be in it but what does the title say to this property is I mean I I'm not questioning for a minute what you've told us I'm just wondering what the title might say so um I think I can I can speak to that I don't mean to testify but I've looked at the deed um in this type of situation if someone hadn't in this case no one did um sold the unit separately by creating a condominium the deed looks the same as to any single family house or any apartment building essentially it's just one deed without reference to how many units uh were there and I would say that's not uncommon uh only if someone would have gone through the effort to condominium the two units into two sellable units would the deed look any different okay thank you the second question is what's the advantage to doing an Adu why are you doing that instead of just well the Hope was this this is more compliant and then honest one of the the big issues even in just refreshing the existing um uh variances is that a two family even though this was I'm not going to use the word grandfather because I don't think that's correct we don't have the proofs to show this continues us as a two family but two families have different parking requirements whereas the smaller Adu with only bedroom one bedroom does not require that and even if we would have gotten that extra variance or or convinced the board frankly that that um a two or three bedroom first floor unit and a two or three bedroom um second floor unit as it was likely configured in the past we would need to figure out parking even if it wasn't something that the board was concerned with and I think it would be um we with with this existing configuration and driveway um we would from a practical standpoint um forgetting the variances need to understand how we would share that parking and and you know the the Princeton rule is I I I probably have other clients are going to be mad at me by saying this is probably a good one generally that stacked parking works if those spaces are just for one house or one unit and when you have stacked parking with either an Adu required to have a space or a two family it's a different analysis and as far as what they're Ed for this you know in the future with the family member or if it's rented before then they can control and that bottom unit can't have a parking spot and they don't have to deal with that and we if we did have two a true up and down two family we would need to deal with that um we would need to figure out how to park it h and and and justify that to you guys and uh I'm not saying we couldn't but this made more sense why not do this just as a one one family unit with a wing for mother-in-law well uh technically one could do that until you add any kind of and I don't want to speak for Derek on where his line is drawn But ultimately as things approach a kitchen um it would require either the use variants for the for the two family or it to be an Adu and I I think there's probably a lot of people hiding in law suites with the pretend not kitchen um that's that's not what we were looking to do okay thank you and my my question um just want to confirm so the patels you you plan to move into this house is that correct yes that is our plan it's 5 years seven years down the road because our kids are right now in middle school and high school but once they finish off that's without intention yes so it's a obviously a a it's going to be two rental units that you will manage yes I think you said two rental units what was the letter half of your question and who who will manage the property oh I I'll be managing it myself yeah and um just one just comment and it's not of importance uh really tracking the history of sale on this property I did see that you're also a real estate agent is that correct yes that is correct I'm a real estate agent for the last four years 2000 is when I but again that's something I'm passionate about I do it but I'm a a senior manager as I said earlier U that's that's my primary focus but that's my side H yes yeah and it does it doesn't affect his case but you know you could you could sell this property you could you could sell both of them and don't we all yeah no intentions to do do that though just since we're we're you know we started off talking about you uh you know I was definitely worried you know concerned about how soon you're moved in well it's like seven years it's a rental property for seven years two rental properties thanks thanks Michael uh any other questions from the board yes please um yes Mrs Patel when did you purchase the property July of last year July of 2023 okay thanks thanks and I one other question if I could sure I know when we carried this from the last time um you mentioned that you admit with some of the neighbors uh Mr Kennedy mentioned um and they're they're fine with this now you did mention one neighbor tonight did you meet with more than one neighbor we have met um no we have I mean I have personally not of course we've sent out letters uh from from our office but uh I think Martha is whom I've spoken to she's right next door and she's actually the one who's sharing not sharing but she's the one right adjacent to my parking lot so I think it made logical sense to talk to her um but yeah I mean I've certainly spoken to her but not uh not many other yeah okay I just wanted to get clarification because I believe it was said some of the neighbors but it doesn't matter one way or the other either they'll comment or they won't comment tonight thanks uh any other questions okay we'll uh we'll open this up to the public but first Mr Kennedy do you want to sum up I just thank you all again um you know this you see many pre-existing non-conforming uses May pre-existing non-conforming Lots there's not a lot what can be done uh to remedy that uh this is in many respects your classic C1 case with the additional flavor as I think also many if not all of the Lots in this neighborhood are is that they're already above even the proportional floor area because this is this lot is less than half of the 6,500 square feet uh that is uh required um there's not a particular requirement that it shows that it's well suited um for for the the use and the intensity um but the site can accommodate it because it it has accommodated the floor area for likely the last 60 years and same goes uh with your your kind of classic hardship variants uh it's been like this uh there's nothing that the applicants can really do to to change that or or to move or rebuild even if they were to tear this down and rebuild it there's almost no place on this lot that a compliant building uh could be built so the uniqueness of this case is the undersized nature which is a little less unique in this neighborhood but the the evidence of its use as a as a prior to family and that the ad you is actually less intense uh fewer bedrooms um uh and and less parking requirements U than a full two family was uh where it otherwise be with that again thank you all uh for for hearing us uh uh tonight and much appreciated your time thank you okay Claudia I'm gonna open the hearing up to the public now Claudia do we have anyone who's indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application yes one second but I might are we unmuted nope you're unmuted hello say hello Joseph Joseph is no you go I'm afraid we can't see you can you can you turn on your video you can't turn on your video there's no option we'll join as panelist hello okay um yes good evening my name is here we go Miss Nelson if you're comfortable would you let us have your address please yes I'm actually at 69 Lee my name is Cheryl Whitney and I came across the street because I'm having computer issues but I'm actually two doors over from the property you're discussing and I would love to be heard so that's no problem if you just uh we'll just swear you in you swear affirm any testimony you give this evening we'll be truthful yes it will thank you thank you thank you okay so um um I am as I said at 69 Lee which is two doors um from the property in question and um I've been listening to all the testimony and I understand that many of the buildings in this neighborhood have um when you purchase them they are not necessarily in compliance and as a person who has renovated my home from two fires and done an addition uh with my neighbor Joseph Weiss who's an architect I'm pretty conversant with all the things that need to be considered the thing that concerns me um there are two things that concern me actually three one is the characterization in a town that's you know crowing about its sustainability um that these lots are comic small I think I heard the word comically three times um if you know there are a lot of people who live on this street they pick the street because they can live within their means and they don't need a Mech Mansion we're close to town and we actually appreciate our comically small lots that said we live cheek by gel and our quality of life is very important to us so when you have a rental which this is at this point with um I think three college boys who have um parties at night in an open fire pit and make all kinds of noise you're changing the character of the neighborhood that's one number two is parking on this street in this block of Lee Avenue is very dense we have the nursery school we have two restaurants at the corner of Lee and John and so if there is an ordinance that says that there should be three parking spaces then there should be three you called it stacked for two you know stacked parking for two you need that third space um and so I would like to see that part of the ordinance upheld um I did say there were three things I think the comically the rental and the parking are my three objections to some of the things that were said here tonight thank you for hearing me out you're welcome okay um Claudia can you uh allow the next uh person to speak we have somebody named Carrie and Mr wise pick one both people need to make themselves visible I guess uh can you hear me I I I'm on hear you Mr we can't see you though can you okay I think you need to again promote me to a oh there I got it actually there we go thank you well I thought I had there you go there we go okay hi Mr wise if you're comfortable could you give us your address please certainly Joseph Weiss 70 Lee Avenue all righty and do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful I so do thank you thank you for for uh letting me speak U thank you to the zoning board for all your work um I think first as a matter of record I've lived across uh 65 Lee for 32 years now and it's always been a single family home uh during uh I've only it's only been known to me as a single family home we we've known the people who have lived there the second thing if you look at a Zillow you do a Zillow search there's no mention of it being a single family home I'm sorry a two family home it's it's it's presented as a a single family home um I don't I don't know that that's significant but I I think it's important to kind of clarify the backround background of this property the to that point as well um approximately a year ago I don't know the exact dates that there was a fair amount of renovation going on of this property I would I know I'm not allowed to ask the applicant questions but I'm curious were they responsible for those Renovations I never saw a permit displayed I have no idea if it was inspected if permits were filed but it was pretty significant there were many dumpsters there was a lot of demolition there were uh it involved all the Building Trades uh building uh uh reconstruction electrical Mechanical plumbing all those trades were present I have no idea what was exactly going on inside but as I said I this was occurring for a a a fairly lengthy period of time over the last year and I never saw a permit so I think it's really important that that that issue be resolved uh especially in this neighborhood where you know any degradation or non-compliance of building life safety standards really has particularly disastrous consequences because as my neighbor mentioned we are cheek by jaw and uh you know it's uh if one house goes up a lot of houses will go up um my really my main concern about this is that Lee Avenue and the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood historic district is already one of the densest neighborhoods in town and really this this application is creating two units out of one and I know the town has been pushing uh accessory dwelling units and I'm not against accessory dwelling units per se but it does have unintended consequences and this is where I would ask the zoning board um to really step back and consider the bigger picture here and that is um that you know if you if you allow any property in our neighborhood and most of the properties are non-compliant to be split up into adus you're effectively doubling the density at some point in uh our neighborhood and I think that could have very serious long-term implications for our neighborhood and I think it would in my opinion degrade the quality of our neighborhood which I have lived in for a long time and I I really I love living here um but I would hate to see a change in this manner I think we there's no to my uh understanding there's no hardship that's been presented here of why this should be allowed to be converted to uh a a a home and then an Adu which that and I believe I understand correctly that the the units could then be sold individually as two separate units and that I think that Prospect will send a signal to other uh investors who will come into the neighborhood and and see an opportunity to convert any hel into basically two units and uh you know that that carries with it a pretty strong profit incentive um and I think I think that in the in the bigger picture if that's allowed if it's allowed to happen in this instance it's going to send that signal and my concern is that uh it will drastically change our neighborhood uh and I therefore urge that you reject this application thank you uh for your attention thank thank you Claudia you have uh anyone else who would like to speak Harry somebody named Carrie yeah it's uh Carrie and Andrew we live at 64 Le Avenue across the street sir we can't we can't see you oh I'm sorry uh need to get your video on hold on I'm working on it I'm right here okay and could we have your full name sir Andrew ski SK e and Carrie Eastman all righty and if you're comfortable can you give us your address 64 Le Avenue all righty and are you both gonna testify or just you no uh car want to join no no we're good I I I we agree on this so I'll okay um so do you s or any do you s orir any testimony you give this evening will be truthful absolutely thank you okay so uh we stand behind Jo Weiss we we our our sentiments are exactly in this particular case and Cheryl uh we agreed so I I put in I I raised my hand before they had spoken they said exactly what we would have said so it would be wasting people's time if we uh okay is that uh is that all you is all you like to say that's it all right thank you we we thought we had content before uh it was presented so thank you very much you're welcome you're welcome Claudia has anyone else indicated they'd like to speak there are no more hands okay so I'm going to close the public portion of the hearing um Mr Kennedy um would you like to respond or you and your client to the absolutely absolutely so um um Mr first um some questions from Mr Weiss uh when not to say that uh you were sold a bill of goods necessarily but when when the MLS listing H from when you purchased the property uh what did it listed as a two family uh it had a mention that this was originally a two family dwelling unit and it can be restored back it was in the MLS listing itself that was consistent with what you looked in the tax records and the everywhere yes and the the multiple uh utility meters and bills and things you looked at that's right and uh next you has to be absolutely clear um I think you started some of the Interior Renovations and exterior actually um already uh hoping that this approval would allow the conversion of one kitchen essentially um but did you do all of those with HPC and construction uh and and full Municipal approval at every step yes we had everything per Cod and by permit um the only hdu unit application is what we are dealing with separately but everything else that was renovated interior wise is per Cod I think that includes another uh administrative waiver separately from HPC for the air conditioning units I think um a couple other things and and and I just want to I'll say uh apologize uh to I believe it's Miss Miss Nelson um when I describe Lots as comically and I for the fourth time tonight unfortunately undersized I mean only with respect to the zoning requirements not that they are not appropriate sizes for this neighborhood in fact they are they dictate what this neighborhood should be it is the comparison of the 6500t requirement in a neighborhood where almost all of the lots are 3,000 square feet um uh so uh with apologies for my inartful disconnect between the zoning rules um I I I want to be clear that we believe as as as you do that these Lots absolutely are the right size uh for this neighborhood and uh because of that uh there's not much one can do uh with them other than to keep what is there whether it's the location in the building the floor area that it exists um uh and and otherwise second I also want to be um clear I suppose that you one of the reasons we weren't heard last month is to make it absolutely clear that we wanted to comply with the town's ordinance on the number of parking spaces so as as one of the designs that we initially proposed had another B room and while um uh you can have three habble rooms uh there's lots of um adus that have been created that um uh that comply and have two bedrooms uh and if you have a kitchen there you could still uh still be two habitable rooms um we didn't uh there's a a middle room here and we wanted to be absolutely clear uh and and we removed the bedroom essentially uh to 100% comply with the municipality's parking requirements we're not asking for relief from a parking ordinance uh in this case for what we've proposed two spaces are required um and two spaces are on the site so wanted to be um clear um with that as well um also the the the Princeton's ordinance here um this board traditionally has been you know agnostic on uh condominium versus rental um this is one where when the applicants kids are done with high school they would like to live here themselves even that case they um there's a chance they'd still be running one of the units then too that's the idea behind the Adu ordinance uh you know uh everyone willing that the in-laws are still at the time you know ready to move in but if that doesn't work work out perhaps in in in in one way or the other that it's likely that the owner would be renting One units that's the idea kind of behind um the Adu ordinance is it um is it possible that someone could condom minimize this yes does the town have have a say in that no is is the intention of this applicant to do that no it's it's a quite small you see that more often frankly in large adus or adus that almost approximate um freestanding houses uh and those are condom minized they be sold separately uh is it possible to do that for a very small one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit technically yes that's not this application applicant's intention and uh not likely a popular item in in the market right now for some someone to do in the future um so uh I I hope we've addressed um uh the the comments um that we that uh we received um ultimately I want to make sure that you know to to to focus the board on uh the ultimate hardship variance is a function of the lot size what's unique to that lot here the lot is undersized you know the the zoning is a very broad brush and painted this neighborhood with requirements that almost no properties meet uh as a result even doing compliant things like a one bedroom Adu require these uh these variances to be to be looked at and here um we believe quite strongly and and hope that that the testimony uh that you agree with that uh this provides what Princeton is is ultimately U looking for this is an opportunity for um uh living in scale with this neighborhood in a way that we believe is not impactful and uh on a property that has previously supported a uh more intense a full two family use uh every case you hear needs to stand on its own merits but if you are thinking about PR know that this is a property with a history and uh of prior to family use um that is not the case with every property uh this is not a door opening to every um undersized property getting an Adu is that what the ordinance looks for uh you know it's it's not far off from that to to be honest um but that's that's not what's being asked here that's perhaps for the the the governing body um but uh again um we showed the history of Prior use um appr proofed kind of up and down shown in the tax records as a two family uh still getting two bills uh from every utility including including Princeton uh that makes it uh unique uh almost uh in its uh showing of its ability to support uh this use because it was this uh in a way that is more intense than the small one-bedroom Adu that it's uh to be converted to um again uh so thankful um for your time tonight also thankful that uh with apologies to the first applicant in the notice issue I'm glad that we're here a little earlier than we otherwise would be uh discussing this U but thank you again for your time and and thought of this thoughts on this application and of course uh uh ready and and able to answer any other questions you might have thank you okay board members um before we go into executive session do you have any questions of the applicant or the attorney yes Donna um for the applicants or the attorney how's the property being used now I'm sorry donana could you repeat the question sure how is the property being used right now got it um so Donna right now it has been renovated and it's been rented out as a single family unit okay and um is the neighbor who testified correct that it's being rented to three college students yes Martha is very well aware yep yeah in fact I went and introduced these uh these students these are Princeton students they are part of the rowing rowing team U I've gone through their background check very well uh you know I think I've already introduced them to Mara who is our next door neighbor uh and at least got that introduction going y I did that when they started off uh and they they started off in May the last month yeah I I just would hope that now that you've heard a complaint from the neighbor as the landlord and owner you could address the complaint because as she said it's a very it's a very tight situation in there and um I think it's very legitimate what she was concerned about and you know if there's a lease maybe they're in breach of the lease I I'll make sure that that is being uh looked at for sure I taking notes here so Donna noted it will get yes thank you Don any other questions of the applicant or the attorney okay all right so let's go into executive session and discuss this amongst ourselves here um comments from the board Michael you're muted Michael I just wanted to start with a to repute you know Rebo some some things that Mr Kennedy said at least from my uh opinion um yes the lots are oversized but but um the applicant never says the building is oversized for the lot I've said that before when I look back if this was a vacant lot would I vote for something a house this size on that lot and the answer is no it would be smaller we are taking a a realize a house that's there it's reality I do understand that uh um significantly over the far you also mentioned and I'm I'm I'm kind of saying this for everybody not I'm not doing one onone with Mr Kennedy that the town um that we're we are agnostic regarding rentals you're speaking to a board that voted against condom minimization on a Lee Avenue property and if you may be aware of that so that's that's not being agnostic we were actually against it because the old idea of the granny flat and a rental property to help support the prime owner of the building was something we stood behind now down the road that got overruled but you're speaking to a board that wasn't agnostic about it also um you said it's it's compliant with what the town is looking for is what was said to the board and I think this we've run into this with a few um adus and even the planning board has yet to deal with uh the Ying Avenue properties and they're they were really looking to Crunch down on the number of VAR es anything over code so um the town seems to be looking for something that is compliant and can still be an Adu um that's that's my read and I'm saying that to everybody on this call that's all I have to say right now you um any other comments questions if we turn this down does it revert to a one family well in I'll just note it it's it's being used as a one family nap the the the request is to allow the adus who could be uh revised and the kitchen added back in I'm sorry would you repeat that the current use uh with the the tenant that's in there now or the group of tenants is essentially as a one family so I don't know if it would revert it would just remain the status quot so there is one kitchen now can can you confirm that but yes you're muted yes that is one kitchen y that's right okay thank you so so uh just to clarify it was it's it's it's metered separately but we don't know when the last time that there were actually two kitchens in there we we don't know when that was hard have you been able to assertain that from you know from your investigations I mean what we have uh again talking to Martha 55 years back in time at some point it was and then based on the meters and the readings that we've looked at evidence of all two bills for whatnot and that's what I looked at when I was purchasing the property so that is what I have uh to go by I don't have evidence of whether it was from this date to this date as a two uh two property or so-called two kitchen or two dwelling unit however the seller when they sold it to me in the MLS listing it said clearly this was originally a two dwelling unit uh and it can be brought back to its original U you know shape and form and that that's hence the investigation of all the two two meters as well as the the zoning reviews and whatnot so yep hope I'm answering your question just don't want to I don't have the exact time frame if that's what you're looking for but when you inspected the house before you bought it it was a one family or a two family house um I it was one kitchen but the meters and all that was separate and the listing was stating that it has originally been a two family yep it was not a two family not a two Kit if that's what you sir do you receive two bills in the mail every month from the utilities yes two bills for electric two bills for gas two bills for water and S I think it goes through the mortgage so I don't have visibility but I think based on the S bill from Princeton yes and both bills are actually amounts yes yes absolutely yes it's level one level two yes it clearly indicates that these are two different floors two different units two different dwelling units so they could okay first first floor first floor Bill second floor bill got it that's right okay thanks how many bedrooms are there there now in in unit um right now so the design stipulates we have four yeah three bedrooms upstairs and there's one downstairs so um with the Adu it's going to be one bedroom Adu and the the primary unit would have three bedrooms upstairs and one living room one downstairs yeah as it's rented now though to the college folks uh is it with those same four bedrooms five I mean how what what is what are they using it for now yeah so you would just add them up three + one and one so five bedroom right now the way it Shi but it's used as yeah they could use the living room as as a bedroom per se but yeah yep so just to clarify though your proposal with the Adu actually removes a bedroom the four total bedrooms yes in what we're asking for currently there's it's a five bedroom house yes yeah Aon I have a question of you um as of right putting aside the bulk variances setbacks and everything else they can put an Adu in this residence right Steve you can't say as a right if they need variances so as of right is I have a single family home home it's always been a single family home and the zoning is for a single family home I have a single family use as a BRI the Adu ordinance as quoted in Derek's memo although it allows an edu to be constructed on an undersized lot in existence as of July 1 2020 the ordinance says the Adu needs to comply with all the other appable bulk requirements so this what you're dealing with here is you have existing nonconformities um the house is old I believe one of the exhibit slides indicated 1920 is when it was built um so I think it's difficult to to uh claim or or or argue that this is what the ordinance calls for doesn't mean you can't give it variances you the applicant is presenting their argument to why they feel they should be allowed to use this for two exess accessory drawing units but I don't think you can say that they have a use as a right to do when I said as of right I meant the ordinance allows for on a lot of this size an Adu obviously there are other criteria that have to be met but you can put an Adu on a single family La yes if you comply with all the other comply with all the other okay thank you so another question then are we B if if we voted against this are we basically saying that for that neighborhood where we know that most of them don't comply with the the the lot size that none of them can have adus uh I mean was if it seems like that should have been there should have been something in the ordinance that addressed these cases if if that's enough to exclude well I I suppose Bernice another way to look at this is that the ordinance says specifically you can build on an undersized lot but you have to comply with all the other bul requirements in that zone so the idea is that it's not the lot area that will stop you under the municipal ordinance but there are other standards as well as with any dwelling so if someone says yeah I know my lot is under size but you know I'm able to comply with all the other requirements I'm doing that you hear that from applicants they tell you yes but my house will comply with everything I'll comply with the setbacks I'll comply with uh the floor area ratio I'll do all that I just can't change the size of my lot so there's two ways to look at this I think the applicant's argument is well it's existing it's undersized and that's driving all these other bulk variances they need that if they had bigger lot then they wouldn't need all these um and that yes all the Lots in that neighborhood are all undersiz but the the the flip side of this is that you're assessing whether the case has been made not to use it as a single family home which is what it's being used for but to change that use now to a home and an Adu there's been reference is to Prior uh two family use I I I think the applicant has acknowledged it's very difficult to indicate when was it two family when did that stop being two family um you've heard the applicant tell you well my neighbor says it was a two family for a long time you've heard the other neighbor who lives across the street who says I've lived here for years it was not used as a two family so I think rather than perhaps focusing on that it might be more helpful for the board to focus on whether you feel that the case has been made for these bul verances to allow the Adu I think Michael you yeah um if I could and it's directly to Bernice's question um and first let me say all the Lots in the neighborhood are not undersized um there are lots that it could comply and could handle um adus I believe um they're not all undersized believe me but going back on this point to when the planning board was discussing this and I spoke at the planning board and mentioned that the undersized lots that are in the neighborhood it's questionable whether you want to burden them with adus and David I will quote his name David Cohen on the planning board said well there's not really that many Lots in the neighborhood that can handle an Adu and um who else who's the president of council now Mia Mia chimed in yeah it won't be that much of an impact and basically said David what's the estimate of number lots and David said maybe 10 so from that discussion and I'm not saying that's law is they were looking at or hoping that a adus applicants would want to put adus on lots that can handle the adus and that's that's some War record on video but that is absolutely accurate of what our exchanges were um but you'll have to go look at it Mr Kennedy I see you don't believe it with apologies it's not I don't believe it I just I I'm I'm I'm not sure the an exchange from a different board um granted members of the governing body I I I'm I I guess your point that the governing bodies I guess were expressing the intent of the ordinance through that exchange is that that is that the thinking Mr Floyd um no I'm just expressing what was said because and I I actually would say I think it's a learning process and we've I've I've said this in public too at at at the last one the town is seems to now look much harder at adus and variances than they did a year ago I I think you're lawyer for the some applicants you may agree with that you may not I'm just I'm not saying what the town anything different than what the ordinance says and Karen read to the ordinance but yeah I'm responding to her question and you know that's why we're here and ultimately we'll take a vote well I mean in terms of what you know what may have been said at the planning board when this was I guess came before them for a review of consistency with the master plan I don't I don't know that that's an area tonight that's going to be binding or that the board can rely on I I think it may be that what's troubling the board is that unlike a situation in which someone says I'm going to have a single family home and I'm going to have I would like a very little unit for my mom to live in or my dad which I guess may have been uh what previous ordinances contemplated that it would be for parents or your child in this situation the accessory ding units uh a lot of questions were asked to the applicant what do you plan to do with it which that's up to the applicant what they plan to do with it whether they're going to live in it or rented or whatever but the point is that as an access red dwelling unit it has the ability to be now turned into Condominiums which again the form of ownership is not something that the town ordinances have addressed but well I'm not disputing that Karen no no no no no but what I'm saying we're past that Condominiums are are legal and I said that yeah and if if the applicant's attorney can imply in his statements what the town wants I can make statements sure interpretation we we've heard a number of things that he said well the town you know is is agnostic the rentals the town is is is is this is something that the town is looking for if he can say things like that I can remember with any variance you're balancing the positive and the negative criteria you look at what is going to be promoted in this case the argument is it's C1 hardship it's uh un undo burden on the applicant If you deny these variances because the lot and uh but then the side is all right so is there any negative impact does it negatively impact the zoning ordinance does it negatively impact the surrounding properties so just like any variance application those are the things you balance with every application you look at both sides of the equation and you balance them so I think that uh is what's before you tonight and it's not different as I said than every application that comes to you for variances that that's what you're used to doing you're looking at it and saying there what what will be promoted by allowing this what can be a negative impact bys I I have a question from Miss Casey if I might I just um pulled up the Adu ordinance and so of s r ran through it at speed so my mark not may not be exactly precise but there's a fairly lengthy section on the R9 Zone and it seems to permit a lot of things except if you start messing with the envelope um of the building and it's TI to setbacks and so forth um in that case you know then it it may trigger a variance but it seems to seems to say and I I se guidance from Miss Casey that if you don't do that you have a relatively clear path without a without need for additional um variances or permits so I don't I don't know how familiar I mean I I can't swear it's that I know every word of that ordinance but because I just looked at it right now um so I'm I'm wondering seeking George I don't I don't think though that there's any question that it needs variances for this proposed use I mean I'm going to ask Dar but I I don't think that's an issue tonight here as to whether it needs variances or not it does does need the variances yeah if the house met the setbacks and they wanted to put an Adu in and it didn't require parking the board should not be looking at this application that's as simple and as basic as it gets well my question was that there's this lengthy section about R9 Zone and dealing with undersized lots and things that do not meet the zoning requirements see that in the pardon i' not seen that in the the Adu ordinance um I can give you the I think I think I can give you the uh it um it's says well it's under figure 24 on it on it says it's subsection K of something or other non-conforming Lots um I'm looking at page 17 um as I pulled it up from the website but what's the ordinance section George yeah yeah let me pardon me but let me sort of get to the top of it and I'll tell you my thought is if it if it's reference to a figure it's probably in the neighborhood character there's an R9 provision in that section I wish I had my grasp of that um but I don't so I'm trying to find it for you uh I mean it's a there's a lot of lot packed into that ordinance so okay yeah it says yes um it's titled neighborhood residential zoning standards it starts from page two of this ordinance and goes to page 17 where it talks about the R9 Zone that's a generic small Zone lot adjustments for primarily single family dwellings that's not the ad ordinance the ad ordinances is contained in 10B 255 C3 and then the uh 10B 2562 and it and it clearly states that the Adu needs to meet the the setbacks it can be built on a small lot um a substandard lot but it needs to comply with the the bulk requirements that pertain to that lot well thanks you I appreciate the CL thank you board members additional comments questions discussion if not if we have no more discussion if someone would like to make a motion could we discuss this further Michael you're muted um I'll make a motion give a try I'm make a motion that we deny um the variance for the F and the related both variances second is there any discussion of the motion okay um Claudia can you call the rooll Miss Chen yes anyway just just to clarify if you're voting yes why don't why don't we make this easier if you want to vote to deny I think it'd be better just say deny application because I think voting yes could be a little confusing here so okay so you what do you want the voter to say that when they yeah I'd like each person who's voting to say you know deny application that way there's not any confusion okay okay uh deny Miss Coulson oh you're mutty what's the alternative to deny then except uh approve okay approve Mr Ploy denied Mr Shriver deny Mr Stein approve Miss Donna Karen am I eligible to vote I was not here the last meeting at the last meeting we didn't have any testimony did we no Carri so yes you're eligible to vote okay approve chairman Cohen deny well then the application denied thank you all was a spirited discussion and um I forgot to remind you of the Nuance of the number of votes we need so even with that last one would not have been enough to approve it so again much appreciated the the discussion and consideration of this um of this application time thank you okay let's go on to the next hearing uh the next case is Z24 d490 21 burn and circle block 601 lot two in the r5t zone Aaron is everything in order with yes the noticing is in order the board has jurisdiction tonight okay uh Derek can you summarize your memo please Steve excuse me just a second can we take two minutes or three minutes certainly okay so we'll come back it's 9:13 we'll say 9:16 let's take three minutes Ryan do you need anybody from the uh other side uh yes we've got uh Jeff ler our architect and uh Colleen Murphy uh the applicant and and actually zmer gai the other applicant as well but uh I don't think he'll speak tonight but those are our three Mr flasher fler and who else sorry I'm trying to get him over uh um Colleen Murphy and then the last person alphabetically uh uh Zer is the other um homeowner zmer that's the that's the one okay e e e e okay are we all back here all right let's re Zoom now okay so uh Mr Bridger can you summarize your memo please yes chairman thank you wel Zar gai and Colleen Murphy are the owners and applicants of 21 Vernon Circle um they're seeking a C1 variance to permit the elimination of the two required parking spaces which are located within the existing two-car garage and they seek to regrade the existing driveway to permit parking in the driveway in exception to the required front yard setback parking setback um properties in the r5t zone in the former Princeton Township Zone the existing lot and single family house are complying with respect to the applicable bulk regulations um I note the applicant was recently granted zoning approval to expand the existing one-story home to a two-story uh home with a large second floor addition um the proposed improvements which are currently underway do comply with the applicable zoning uh requirements the existing twocc car garage leading to the two-car basement uh garage slopes toward uh the lot slopes down toward the garage and the grade drops from a little more than 82 feet at the property line to slightly 78 foot elevation at the garage entrance the applicant is seeking to level this driveway grade and establish a retaining wall in front of the garage um the garage will be converted to a living are in the basement and the two proposed parking spaces in the driveway they do not meet the required 25t front yard parking setback um the parking proposed parking setback is measured to the end of a 19 foot long parking space which is the requirement um the required parking setback is 25 and the proposed parking setback is one foot um and and uh it's kind of on a slant it's uh I think I made a error on theuh other setback but um it's one foot and it's uh 5.5 feet on the other because the the uh it's a parallelogram it's not a it's not a rectangular driveway it's on the culde SEC and they requested C1 consideration and that's my memo if you have any questions I'd be glad to address them thank you just what Derek one quick question you're saying the proposed parking setback is one foot and it's 5.5 feet right so if you look on the uh sketch of the driveway the on the one side the uh the driveway length from the uh front of the garage is 20 feet so a 19 foot space would require uh one foot variance that it would it would excuse me confusing myself it it would need to be uh it would need it would need a one foot I am correct excuse me I'm confusing myself sorry so uh the 20 foot setback uh would need a uh the 20 foot space would need a a five foot setback to comply and the 24.5 foot space would would uh needed another uh one foot setback to comply okay thank you Karen excuse me I forgot to ask if all the paperwork was in order for this appliation I thought you did already Steve it is in order but I think before we went to break you you asked me that okay sorry no problem all right so um thank you Derek um Mr Kennedy members of the board um thank you for sticking with us uh tonight um as Mr Bridger said um first I very much appreciate um him clarifying I know uh members all almost always go out and look at the property and uh you see oh there's a lot of construction here did somebody jump the gun uh uh no they're they're uh doing compliant renovations to their home and as part of that they are looking to solve the the parking problem uh with this property that existed likely since it was built uh you'll hear from uh the homeowners here this evening um and the architect to take you through the project but but ultimately we're looking at a a home that was built with a front-facing basement garage uh the slope of this 20 foot section uh is so steep that it is unusable uh so these homeowners have never been able to get a car into the garage and really can't even Park on uh the sloped driveway and as you'll see end up parking essentially in the street um uh kind of overlapping the sidewalk uh because uh that's the only place they can effectively get a vehicle in and out um this board has looked at other um parking uh front yard parking cases before and and we're very cognizant of the importance of looking at Alternatives uh and here you'll see in in this is a C1 variants there are two other places on this lot that driveways could go one unfortunately is a Princeton uh sewer or storm water easement uh that cannot be built upon uh that was unfortunately uh what we were hoping to do but confirmed with the town that it's not a place that we can build on and the other side you will see is a steep slope uh just as steep as what we're looking at um retaining walls a shed trees and is not a place that a drive could be built either so the proposal here is to fill in the existing unusably steep driveway as part of the renovation and allow them to get their cars off the street and onto their property um uh solving something that the this property owner their predecessors and the neighbors um have all been looking to correct uh for quite some time um uh so with that I I'd like to um invite we'll have two witnesses uh tonight uh first Miss Murphy uh the uh owner applicant or or p of the owner applicant and and and Jeff fler are the architect for the project as well so if we'd want to swear them both in I'd be happy to present them now okay can we see them and they're muted I see Mr fler I don't see your client Mr Kennedy she might be she's on a screen oh I'm sorry she's on a different screen okay uh and Mr fleser can you unmute yourself right do you both swear or affirm that any test Tony you give this evening will be truthful I do thank you so Colleen if we could start with you um and and just briefly introduce yourself and your your family of the board and and uh what your connection to Princeton is and what you're uh looking to do here with your project hi everyone Thanks for uh helping us T so uh my husband zmer gai and I have been in the Princeton in Princeton for since 2005 we're professors at Princeton um and we've lived in this home uh for the past 12 years and um as Mr Kennedy said we uh have always been faced as he's going to show you some pictures with this problem with our not being able to use uh our driveway at all and we found out from our neighbors that the previous owners also never were able in fact the neighbors have lived in the house since they were their house was built next door and they've never seen anyone use the drive the grive way or the garage cuz they're it's unusable um but anyway we we you know we have two kids are going to school in Princeton and so we've been in the town a long time and we would like to finally solve this problem that we've been dealing with for many years and I know Mr Bridger clarify this but the other work you're doing you've pulled your permits and that's all done uh uh with the okay thank you um uh so with that i' I'd like to we've got one exhibit uh tonight I'd love to share my screen and Mark this as as A1 if that's all right okay make sure I picked my correct screen here uh so Miss Murphy um first as you know to orient the the board to where um uh 21 Vernon is uh it's in the R5 District that blue arrow is uh pointing towards your neighborhood uh more or less yeah it's uh right there near this kisac here and then kind of same orientation but uh your kind of pie uh Pizza Pie shaped lot um shown there in the area map that that's you yes then uh flipping orientations I guess we're looking at your property and and I uh this is just with the aerial photo I guess probably shows the problem um precisely uh or at least shows the the the result for the last several decades right those those are two cars parked in front of the driveway and the only place you could actually level and and and get out of one yeah because if you move any farther forward the car is tipping and it actually feels like it's going to fall into the into the house so those are our cars just parked like across to the sidewalk area and uh I see a few other cars parked in the street but you know because it's a culdesac is there a lot of other places to park around the because of the curb Cuts No in fact and those are a neighbor's cars and then you have there's a driveway right next to where that blue line is so it's already oh and there's a um a drainage right between our house and the next driveway so we can't park there either on the street so it's very little parking anywhere in there on that area so uh I guess we'll start looking at a couple of photos of of the I'll say existing these are taken right before you started your renovation so that's correct right so we have our um and you know we have our car plugged in but that's also a problem because we can't do it into in our garage obviously and and if you were fully parking in the street you wouldn't be able to charge there either would you that's correct okay um and again I think you said this before but not only have you not parked in the driveway of the steepest but you really can't have you been able to get a car in and out to actually park in the garage no no not at all it's uh it's just feel it's quite dangerous I mean I just put it this way but you know what they were thinking when they built this 1960 something no I have no idea um next I guess this shows some of the current construction but uh this is the side profile showing the the the grade yeah so you can see how steep it is just if just you tip like going into the garage is like um it feels like you're going down a ski slope and uh if if this is only 20 feet long uh and and about uh seven or eight feet deep there um I we can do some math but that that is a um a dangerous slope is that your take there yeah that is all right um so here uh this is the a piece of the site plan here um and it is kind of reversed from what we were just talking about but on the right though um that blue area that is the township I'll say Township it was the former Township but that is a easement held by Princeton where unfortunately you could not build a driveway is that correct that's true and then on the other side and we'll see some photos of this that's uh an area also where uh you you can't physically build a driveway unfortunately no all right and that red line you know that's the the the the lot line of the of the house uh so you know to to finding what the front yard is and isn't um to to be behind so looking at this next photo here um this one has the trees the foliage gone but it shows you know what is behind your house you can kind of see it um in this photo but is there you know a slope down to a stream there yeah there's a slope down to a stream and um a wooded area that we're at the yeah anyway there's a stream right that's running through by there so unfortunately the further you go back to actually be able to be in a compant location the more either into that Stream area or or deeper the slope things get that's correct uh it's a little hard to see but also on the on the side of your home now on the side that is not encumbered by the Princeton easement you've uh got a couple things is there a shed there as well yeah there's a shed and a retaining wall because it actually is quite steep there as well so I guess this next shot this shows a photo I think that Arrow shows kind of where where perhaps your husband was standing when he took it but looking towards the street where the um I guess a conceivably a parking space would would go but the terrain and and retaining wall and and trees would yeah that's exactly right um so I want to have some questions for the architect to take us through but uh if there's any questions about the existing use or condition certainly happy to have uh the applicant answer them at this time if uh if the bo would like it I do have a question when it's really heavy rainfall does water blow into the garage area there's a drain that's uh set close to the garage so we've never had flooding into that because that drain we keep it we try to keep it from getting blocked thank you I I have a question let's yeah if you could put up the the slide with the eement in pink or blue I was wondering because I was out there when you approached the municipality did you propose a specific location we sorry for the driveways yes so the the the honestly when I was introduced to the case uh was initially presented with this is well let's let's get the approval to to fill in the driveway that's the only option uh at which point I I actually approached the engineering department and and asked uh hoping that it was the type of easement that that either waivers could be granted or perhaps was not used actively or that there would be some process to allow um either a garage which would have been the uh homeowner's preference um uh or just a driveway unfortunately this type of vement would permit neither on any of those locations so we even had hoped uh if even just a driveway was permitted but of structure to somehow try to tuck a garage back behind um and then just use it for Access um unfortunately um no type of improvements like that could be built on this EAS okay because I when I first saw it I I wondered would there be a place for the garage but it would have meant you know that that little one story you know between the main main part of the house in the easement of making that a garage of building a garage and you would really only encroach on a very small part of the that was actually our preference okay yeah that that jumped right out of me at me and but did did they know you were asking for that oh yes um we were we were hoping for any combination of structure or even just some part of the of the of the driveway uh and un fortunately uh we were hoping Frank as we weren't quite sure what was under there that perhaps it was even uh something that could be abandoned or or deed back or unused and uh unfortunately uh not the case okay um that's unfortunate but I'm glad that's the answer and you you explored it yeah now the the the the the the secondary option of least getting these cars off the street is is not what these homeowners want really they would like to have a a reasonable place for a garage um and there's um the ideal place would have been back behind there um either on that eement or next to it and you know we The Hope was well gosh if we can't even build we can't build a structure on it at least maybe let us get some of the drive on there yeah unfortunately yep perhaps if there's no other questions for the appli I I'd like to um very quickly um have our architect um introduce himself I know he's been qualified before this board many times but uh Jeff you could very briefly in the in the uh most rapid and yet appropriate way uh give your credentials uh to the board so I got be you uh good good evening um I have a bachelor's in architecture from New Jersey Institute of Technology I've had my own practice in Flemington New Jersey for the past 27 years um I've appeared in front of this board on several occasions okay um yes that's we'll accept you as an expert thank you thank you so much Mr chairman um so so Jeff you've been working with these homeowners uh on likely what everyone went to investigate this was kind of seeing but the revisions of the of the property but perhaps we're not quite focused on that I guess upper right is the the current elevation bottom right is uh the uh you know administratively approved um revisions to the house that You' designed yes it was a second story Edition and on the left side we have this kind of side profile um of the house uh as as approved but in the bottom right can you talk a little bit about what um what is happening next to the filled in area um so there there's a small open area to allow daylight down into the basement where where where that hand is right now um so we're just proposing a concrete retaining wall um so that we can level out the driveway for a flat parking surface yes and that that wall would also I suppose keep a car from entering the the kitchen uh of of of the applicants yes it would um Mr Bridger in his description was talking about the actual distance for the variances that we were at I didn't want to interrupt but you know we do have a diagram that kind of shows that it is a bit confusing to to think about the numbers but ultimately on the left here you can see the current condition on the right we have the site plan showing what Princeton considers a parking space a 19 foot by nine box for which there need to be two um and on on the right side in the trapezoid that Mr briard talked about the backside you know the closest point of that box would be one not from the street but from the lot line and on the left um because it's uh you know the curvature of of the lot line here uh would be five and a half feet so that is the relief needed now even though that's the relief an actual car um would be much closer to the house and and and further that's not what the variance is the Princeton considers the parking space envelope um but ultimately that visually shows the current condition what they're forced to do now and and uh what we're hoping to achieve for them which is to get those cars off the street onto their property so they can plug them in and and park them uh in a in a usable the unfortunately the only usable place um on appropriate for their uh on their property um there's no other place unfortunately that would bring them into a compliant location uh but this is several steps uh I would say infinitely better uh than the current condition and we're hoping that uh you you you see that the C1 hardship of the existing location of the home uh the Princeton easement and the steep slopes on the other side uh as well as the uh stream Corridor uh the retaining wall uh the trees and the other items that don't make it allow it to be possible to to bring uh parking back on the uh less obvious side uh uh unfortunately we we we too like uh Mr Floyd thought we had a solution on on the we call the left side on looking this way it's on the right side here uh but unfortunately uh Municipal EIT keeps that from from happening Jeff any other pieces of the uh Fillin uh project or elements of this you like to no I think you've described it well and and we did explore all those options that that we've talked about we kind of locked into to this location yeah uh I I'll one last question you you know if if if if you didn't have this kind of open area here to allow some some some light in the basement uh would you would you recommend having the parking be any closer than anyway would there be landscaping or some other appropriate buffer from the house there there would yes yeah okay right um so so with that if if the board has any questions for um our architect happy to uh to to to answer them I have a question yes if you took your existing driveway down towards the garage and you just elevated It Up level would you still need a variance well that that's what we're proposing to do to bring it level I know I know but I guess my confusion I guess is why you need a variance at all since existing driveway is there and you wouldn't if you just pulled your cars all the way in wouldn't need a variance so if you just elevated that up why do you need a variance well I don't believe the even the current driveway to the current variant my take on is that while it is kind of a fantasy technically the existing garage which actually wouldn't comply today because of the front facing and flush with the front of the uh of the home um if you could get a car in there and and parked it there that would be a compliant location so technically there are now two compliant spaces down underneath the home it just happens to be that they are unusable uh and inaccessible um but that would be the two spaces that the town or that the the burrow uh excuse me the the the Princeton would consider that they have now that we are I guess technically taking away by filling in the driveway and making the driveway use thank you any other questions of the architect or the applicant or the owner okay Mr Kennedy can you take your image down all right um board members are there any other questions before we uh consider going into the public portion of the hearing okay Mr Kennedy we're going to you want to sum up here before we go on thank you again uh for for considering this tonight uh this has been a decades long problem uh and they have their contractor out finishing up a project we thought this would be a good time to to try to find a solution you know by uh by filling it in it gets these cars off the street uh much to the the Delight of of the neighborhood uh frankly uh it it is not perfect but it is the closest to a good solution of all the things that we've looked at that uh this lot which is quite unique with the unfortunate easement to one side and the slopes and all the other problems on the other side uh it is the only place uh realistically that they could have it on their property and they are excited uh uh to to get their cars off the street and be able to plug them in and and and get into their house U like like most other people in Princeton do so with that um thank you so much uh you know the the balancing here of of the C1 we we don't see any negative this is all Improvement um uh here um and and and hope you see it the same thank you you're welcome okay um we're going to open this up to the public so if anyone in the audience uh would like to speak they have to uh signify that by raising their hands uh at the bottom of the screen Claudia has anybody indicated they'd like to speak on beh has of this there are no hands okay I'm G give it a second or two here all right we'll close the public portion of the hearing again Mr Kennedy th up I'll just again thank you all um and and and and hope uh you see this as we did as as you know finally a solution for this uh for this family um with really no other Alternatives um but to um uh but to to fill this in and and and thank and finally get their cars back off the street thank you you're welcome okay uh board members uh do we want to discuss this any questions comments or motions I actually think that this is a good solution to a very very difficult lot um I don't know if there are any uh other places to park on the lot I think these I think this would work it's not ideal but I think it's a very best of a very difficult situation I agree I move we accept the uh application second okay any discussion of the mo okay Claudia can you call the rooll Miss ten yes Miss Coulson yes Mr Floyd yes Mrs Shriver yes Mr Stein yes Miss Donna yes German Cohen yes thank you you're welcome thank you all so much you're welcome okay okay our last and final hearing of the evening is case number Z24 d48 484 um 58-60 William Street block 47.0 2 Lot 36 um Steve Steve I'm not GNA be able to stay for this one okay um so thank you for staying as long as you could thank you so much everyone good night good night night Karen the notice is in order yes the noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight okay thank you Derek can you summarize your memo please yes sir thank you uh Princeton University is the owner of 58-60 William Street and they are seeking a floor area variance pursuant to njsa 40 colon 55 d-7 D4 and related C bulk variances to permit alterations in additions to illegally existing non-complying two family dwelling subject properties in the r4b zone uh the former Princeton burrow it's non- complying with regard to the required 6,600 foot lot area the existing 3,288 um not complying regarding the 60t lot width uh existing 45.72 and it's non-complying regarding lot depth the requirements 100 the existing 77.98 and the existing two family dwelling is non-complying uh regarding the smaller side yard setback requirement of eight the existing is 4.58 um it's non-compliant regarding the combined side yard setback requirement of 20 um the existing is um uh excuse me 0 Point um three encroachment on an enjoining lot and um the larger sidey yard setback uh again is 12 and it's non-complying it encroaches into the sidey yard lot and the smaller sidey yard setback requirements eight and the existing is 4.58 the rear yard requirements 35 the existing is 20.13 feet um there's numerous height to setback uh requirements um in different parts of the house I'm not going to go through all of them um and then the uh floor area ratio the requirement is 67.5 and that's proportional floor area ratio existing is 89.8 and impervious coverage requirement 61.5% and the proposed is 70 or existing is 71.42% the property line the existing is 1 and 1/2 ft the applicant is proposing to remove the two rear twostory sections of unit 60 and add a new smaller rear twostory additions and a single story addition is proposed to each unit in the rear as well the existing lower pitched roof of unit 58 will be demolished and reconstructed to match the gable roof at unit 60 the plans include adding two new Gable roofs facing the rear and left side over the new addition small patios in the rear of each yard are proposed for each unit the existing front porch will be rebuilt in its existing footprint um the other improvements include new windows new uh cement uh lap Clapper siding new asphalt shingles on the slope roof and a new EPDM Eric you're muted the whole time sorry just just a second how did it go off you dropped off after EPDM that's right okay well good thank you uh the EP demo roofs on the lower pitched roofs um new heating and air conditioning systems are proposed for each unit the remaining interior of each unit will be uh renovated each unit contains a living room kitchen two bedrooms one and a half bass and a laundry room existing parking area located at the rear of the site will be shortened to a 19 foot compliant length the stall width will remain at the existing 8 feet 9 in um although the existing F of the building decreases the proposed F exceeds the maximum permitted um which is 67.5 eight and as I noted earlier existing is 89.95 the proposed will be reduced to 7 7.5 and um there's numerous variances there's there's about 22 I don't know if you want to read them into the record or if we could just accept a report um at the end of the day the impervious coverage is reduced and the the um the f is reduced the lot I'll go through them the lot area requirement is 6,600 the existing is 3288 the lot width requirement is 60 ft the existing is 40 5.72 the depth requirement is 100 existing is 77.98 um and a lot of these variances when you take away a structure there's no grandfather clause on a two family um so when you take away the roof structure and you replace it it's a variance so um the front porch setback on the right the requirement is four um the proposed uh will be 4.02 and that's under neighborhood character so that does comply um the left side requirement is eight to proposed will be 0.5 ft the smaller sidey yard setback uh this is the new roof Edition in the front it's 8 is required and proposed is 0.75 ft the combined sidey yard setback for the new roof is addition is 20 feet and the proposed is 5.33 feet the smaller side yard setback for the new roof addition side requirements eight and uh the proposed is 0.522 the overhang of the new two-story Edition the combined sidey yard setback for the new roof Edition the requirements 20 and the proposed is 12.19 to the overhang of the new edition the combined sidey yard setback for the one story Edition is 20 feet the proposed will be 13.56 feet and the smaller side yard setback for the on story Edition is eight the proposed will be one foot uh the rear yard setback to the new uh addition in the back requirement is um 35 ft the proposed is 30 89 the rear porch setback requirement setback is 31 the proposed is 2529 the right side rear porch setback uh requirement is eight the proposed is 7.92 feet the air conditioner setback for unit 58 um requirement is three the proposed is one feet and then um there's four height to setback ratios for the uh new addition um in the impervious coverage the existing is 61 a half and the I mean the required is 61 a half the proposed will be 6914 the requirement for parking is three spaces um there's existing two and there will be two uh once the project is done uh there's a 4- foot parking setback requirement from the property line for the parking spaces and the proposed is 1.5 fet and uh the parking stall width requirement is nine whereas the proposed is 8.8 feet um and those are the the bulk variances um if you have any questions I'd be glad to try to address them D Dereck and Karen I have a quick question my wife works at Princeton do I have to recuse myself oh she works for the University yes um but you do not I do not all right you feel that you can be um objective and neutral in this application I do we have Mr degia here tonight Mr degia do you have any thoughts or comments um you mean on the uh the um Stephen yes can you increase your volume yeah we need to we can't hear you I'm sorry uh how's that uh let me see me um give me one second here let me see if I can adjust it um is is that better yes yes it is okay good um just give me one sec so I I'm not sure if he has recused himself in the past um how many how many um how many uh vote uh people that are eligible to vote are there six we have six now we had one member who had to leave so we have six okay um I don't I don't know about past applications Chris because this is the first time it's been raised with me so I can't comment about that give me one second yeah um I I just don't know if the relationship with his wife who's being you know has Financial stake in the University so to speak because she's an employee kind of opens the door for a challenge so okay you know all right Stephen um although I would like to have him for for this I know com comment is is um well taken so I think it would be best if you recused yourself okay in that case I recuse myself all right so we need you to um mute and um cut your video please need to bug off completely then oh yeah okay thank you Stephen we appreciate it good night thank you all right Chris so you have five tonight you want to proceed tonight if the board is willing uh do you want to carry it what would you like to do um I guess we'll Pro proceed and then um you know if it gets late we can maybe carry it and then um at the you know maybe someone will have the opport Unity review yeah that's I that that would be the only thing that that would mean then that members who are not here tonight so we have two members then who have potential would not have participated in order for that to change at the next meeting they would have to both listen to the tape to give you um a full board that gets carried understood that would be great all right so that means you would like to continue correct okay okay well uh Mr chair should I start please begin thank you um thank you very much uh for the record my name is Christopher degia from the law firm of fager Drinker Biddle and wreath here in behalf of the applicant Trustees of Princeton University um this evening we're here to talk about a renov ation project involving a Charming duplex located at 5860 Williams Street um it is proposed to go through some extensive interior and exterior improvements um one of the things you know because you hear all the list of variances but one of the things that I just want to point out is though even though there's a lot of exterior changes and adjustments we're not actually increasing the scale of the building and in fact we are substantially reducing the floor area so it's not something out of scale it fits very nicely it's about um reusing an existing building and making it um you know just putting a lot of love into it so that it could continue to be used as a two family structure uh Derek went through uh Mr Bridger went through a number of the proposed improvements from new windows new siding new roof uh New Heating and Cooling um systems and um he went through the list of of variances and the other point I just want to make is as you go through that list and and and go through each and every variance you'll see that the proposal is vastly a a vast improve improvement over the current conditions and is more keeping with the Zone plan you know for example and I know uh Mr Bridger already pointed it out we're requesting an F variance um the existing f is 89.8% we are reducing that to 77.5% so we're going from 2,954 square feet approximately to 2,547 square feet approximately so you'll get to see the plans will go through it but many of these variances are because of existing um conditions there are even the roof line today actually goes over the property line so we're requesting variances related to sidebar set setback but in many ways we're improving it because we're removing that encroachment um with that being said I'd like to call up our our Consultants would you like us to swear them all in or one at a time oh we can we just need excuse me we just need their names please yes uh we have Ronnie breiner who's already brought over she's our architect um tamos Shay I believe he's still in the attendees so we may want to bring him over he's our civil engineer Kate Keller our professional planner and Martha diavila are who's the university project manager and she's already here all of you would raise your right hand do you all swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you I do okay um let's start with we put together a nice uh presentation I'll start by um introducing you to our architect uh Ronnie breiner Ronnie can you give us uh a brief uh summary of your qualifications and experience and license can you please unmute and make yourself visible please I think she was having some difficulty with her microphone so she's going to be um giving her testimony through telephone okay but will she we be able to see her you can see her her r a b a r okay okay Ronnie I don't think we could hear you yet can you hear me now yes yes excellent thank you so as I mentioned we put together a presentation that is um uh basically a PowerPoint of 21 slides we can mark the presentation as A1 if you like and then we could and as we go through we could reference the page that we are great referring to okay Christopher I'm the one who's uh who has the presentation so I will share the screen I just need to make sure that I can that I have the available you know the there it goes can everybody see this yes we can okay great this is um A1 this is sheet one and um we need to go through your qualifications my qualifications or Ron yes I'm just desing the the slideshow yes yeah I'm sorry I've been a a licensed I am a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey I've been so for 33 years I've had my own practice for about the same amount of time a small firm in Princeton also for 33 years and I've been in front of this board a few times Well accept you as an expert thank you you're welcome so would you like me to jump in yes all right so let's move to um slide two is our site location um you can see the proposed site is in Black 5860 Williams street is located on the north side of Williams Street uh it is located behind between two single family residences behind it is the Firestone Court tow houses in front of it is the friends Center for Princeton University can go to slide three slide three is our um Varian plan this is the civil engineering one lots of information and we will refer back to this one as needed and if Tom OA needs it um we will use this one for civil uh we'll move on to our photos which is slide four this is showing the front elevation of the home um it's an existing two family if the left side we call 58 is number 58 the right side is number 60 the house is well over a hundred years old it has had many additions probably some subtractions as well um and you can see the existing is woodsiding and um asphalt jingle roofs there's also some flat roofs and on Slide Five we'll be looking at the elevations we it it's a narrow space so we have to do it one from the rear and one from the front this is looking at the left side from the rear you'll notice uh the driveway comes right up to the existing house you'll also see the heavy cornice on the left side elevation that's the the portion where it's over the driveway um by a little bit and over the property line by a little bit that Christopher had mentioned the partial left side elevation front again shows the driveway running right along the left side of the home and then on slide number six we will be looking at the rear elevation which shows some of the uh additions that were made over the years um you will see that these are the ones we proposed to take off they are in poor condition would be the the two-story one the single story and in the back the um other two-story one with the flat roof that then slopes sort of an odd uh configuration there we'll we'll look into that more but those are what we're proposing to move remove the two cars that you can see parked there are in the two parking spaces that Christopher also mentioned that uh the residence has moving on to number seven we'll be looking at the right side elevations again from the rear and from the front um the right side shows again the sloping um single story that we propos to remove and the twostory lower than the rest of the main house that we also propose to remove and then we'll move on to slide eight which shows the property and and the dwelling in context with some other um houses on the street these are the two single family um homes on either side and then side nine is looking from the opposite direction um you'll see the two single families again the driveway you can see a little bit of Firestone Court in the background that's slide nine is the uh view from the front which is the University and the friend uh complex slide 10 I'm sorry that's slide 10 slide 11 is the just a view looking down the driveway again the driveway is on the left side of the house and you can start to see how it winds and turns into the courtyard of the um Firestone Court area slide 12 is our variance plan our site plan it shows the existing brown color is the existing house that we propose to retain this is the main body of the house shows the front porch which we propos to rebuild in its same space the hatched area on the brown the diagonal hatch is where we're removing some of the flat roofs that exist and or low sloped roofs and adding new roofs on top of the existing walls that exist the crisscross hatch area shows what we propos to remove so again it's that single story in the back and the twostory that's that's behind that what we propose to build back is the green so the green is a single story Edition across the back of the proper back of the house with two small porches one facing rear one facing right we also propose a two-story Edition um behind that sort of tucked into the L of the existing house to remain you'll notice that heavy dark line that's the uh the outline of what the proposed I'm sorry what the allowable setbacks are so as you can see um it's a small lot is Christopher mentioned and uh the setbacks are are just not we're not able to comply obviously the left side I also wanted to point out where the driveway runs right along the house you can see the property line running along there is only a foot away from the existing house and a foot away from both our proposed Edition and of course the existing house that's there now so it's extremely tight along that side behind that you can see the two parking spaces that currently exist there's a dashed line there where we proposed to that's where the parking goes now it's extra deep we don't need all that we were proposing to shorten the parking space in order to decrease our impervious coverage um there are two patios it's a little hard to see but two very small patios one for each um dwelling unit then we can move to the um before you go on I just want to we I'm sorry Ronnie can you hear me before you go on just because you're on this slide I just wanted to mention one thing to the um to the zoning board um members that um we've been in communication with our rear neighbor which is the uh Firestone Court Condominium Association um they had sent a letter I'm aware and I'm sure somebody will be here this evening um commenting or maybe not I don't know but um what I wanted to say is um they did make one comment that's directly related to the proposed improvements that were showing and in the back we're we're showing um taking up some of that P pavement the association has asked us to consider leaving it in place as is um the the the pavers below sort of match the association's driveway that goes through and through the property in the back and for whatever reason they did indicate um that they would prefer that we leave it there we have no objection to that we could leave it as is the only item that I want to point out is it would require a variant related to impervious coverage so if the board is willing to grant that variance we would be happy to adjust the plan to leave the parking area and the planting around it in its existing condition okay sorry um continue pleas all right then I was going to move on to slide 13 these are the um it's a comparison of the first floor plans the one on the left is the removal plan as we spoke about you can see the existing uh kitchen on the 58 side is that two story piece that will be removed the existing kitchen on the 60 side will also be removed and that's the one story the dining room is the twostory which will be removed next next to that is our proposed plan and you could see we're proposing a small 8 foot Edition it's one story across the back which would house uh a mudro laundry powder room the kitchen on the 60 side is also rebuilt and that's a new kitchen it would have a second floor above it you can see the two air conditioning units that Derek referenced the one on the right complies the one on the back Corner uh for this 58 side will not um the reason we're removing these by the way is they're just in very poor condition um those those additions were built years ago they're too close to the ground and the foundations are poor so those need to be rebuilt moving on to slide 14 this shows the second floor plan the removal plan and the proposed again you can see that on the 58 side we're removing a bedroom that was above the kitchen and then we're removing a bedroom on the other side but when you look at the proposed we're going to put that bedroom back so what was a three-bedroom home on the 58 side becomes a two-bedroom home on the on the proposed and on the 60 side two bedrooms remain as two bedrooms and and one bath on the second floor for each unit and then we'll move on to the elevations slide 14 is the front elevation um we're again comparing so the left side here shows the removal elevation those heavy dashed lines are what we were removing so typical on everywhere we are taking off the old siding adding new Hardy plank cement siding same exposure as what was there we're taking out the old windows which are a combination of old windows and Anderson Windows and installing new Anderson Windows and then you can see on the left side there's one of the low slope roofs on the right side the 58 slide we propos to take that off and build up we're not changing the walls but increase the roof pitch so that Al lines across the front to give it a more unified appearance as the existing front porch currently does the front porch runs across both units um the brown for the front porch shows that it needs to be reconstructed the base of the porch is in bad shape the foundation is in bad shape um we hope to retain the porch itself we'll put a new EPDM roof on it but we do need to rebuild the porch as was explained the height to setback r ratios which you see on here I'll let our planner discuss more but um they do not comply as Derek had mentioned um moving on to slide 16 we'll be looking at the right side elevations now and again the right side removal there we go with the two-story part going away the twostory part on the 58 side going away the single story going away you can see the heavy dashed line when you look at the the proposed that's in that sort of greeny gray color that's what we proposed to do it is smaller if you look to the right there the note indicates line of existing structure to be removed so you can actually see the outline of what was there compared to what we propose um there's the small porches that we discussed and the main body of the house facing front uh has not changed other than the roof that we showed and we'll move on to slide 17 which are the left sides um again this side is the side along the driveway so that flat roof above is the roof that projects slightly into the property line and over it by small amount we propose to remove that it's a flat roof we're going to remove that and as you can see on the proposed left side we're going to add on top of the existing twostory walls a raised sloped roof that we're going to pull back and and and get it out off the property line as much as we can there's a new Gable that's the front facing Gable that we looked at before the proposed rebuilt front porch and on the back you can see the single story addition and again the the dotted lines indicating what was there and how we're pulling back from what was there and then we'll move to slide 18 which is the rear elevation and Ronnie just just to clarify um that space that we're taking out was essentially a third bedroom so now both of the units would only have two bedrooms is that correct that is correct yes yes correct so they both have an open kitchen living dining and the mud room on the first floor two bedrooms and a and a full bath on the second so this again shows the dotted line where we looked at the photo showing all of that in the back to be removed and then the addition that we propose with the single story across the back the two-story behind that and then the proposed roofs um on the left side to pull it back um off the property rine also to unite the back of the house as well and then we can move on to our slide next slide next slide is actually showing the variances and this would be Kate or planner unless there are questions for me board members any questions of the architect okay please proceed okay Kate are you there I know she's there somewhere let's see um yes sorry hold on one second sorry about that so uh this is Kate Keller our professional planner and in a minute once she gets her uh equipment straightened out I'm going to ask her for her qualifications okay sorry about that hi everybody good evening chairman members of the board okay can you tell us a little about your um education and Licensing sure um my name is Kate Keller um I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey um I currently am a principal with the firm of Philips price grego Laney Hughes LLC based in Hoboken New Jersey um we um I've been providing testimony before land use boards and have been licensed since approximately 2015 and I've served as a professional planner across the state um for about uh 15 years total of experience I hold um a master's degree in planning from University of Pennsylvania as well we'll accept you as an expert thank you very much I appreciate it you're welcome thank you um so yeah so so I think you know we've heard uh thank you to um Mr Bridger for reading his report into the record and you've heard a lot of the details about this proposal from um our architect so I'm going to keep my testimony focused you know exclusively you know in general just looking at the overall um variances that are requested here I'm not going to go too into detail because as you can see and as you have heard there are a number of variances um I think the this way the easiest way to sort them is you can see on this exhibit that's up up on your screen this is page 19 of the um of of the exhibit that our that that Ronnie was going through so this is the same on the right hand side of the page is the same site plan diagram that was previously within this presentation so I think that that was explained rather eloquently in which which is being removed which is which is the addition um and Etc and I think it also one thing to focus on is the um the small size of that building envelope that's in the property so just to begin um you know just going I'm going to I'm going to kind of sort as it's shown on this plan I'm going to sort through the Varian is kind of in just looking at them in groups um just because I think that a lot of them categ be categorized in similar ways so the first one um you know and I think you know in terms of the burden of proof technically this is the highest or this is the the most intense variance that we're requesting even though it's actually not as you can see is a D4 variance for floor area ratio um the maximum permitted proportional F on this site because it is an undersized lot as I'll get to shortly is it's 67.5% we're current under current conditions uh we're at almost 90% 89.8 five and we are proposing to reduce the F to 77.5 so you know I think even though it is listed as a variance and we do require one we are reducing the F by over 10% and bringing it to much closer compliance which what with than than what is proposed EXC me than what is currently existing um but also notice I go through this list of variances where you'll see um certain areas are are bolded certain areas are in italics but just really to keep going down this list under lot area and dimensions um the minimum lot area per dwelling um we are about half at what we should be and that is this an existing condition this is a very old house that was constructed um you know prior to the uh current zoning ordinance and the same goes for minimum lot width and minimum lot depth to which no changes are proposed but those um you know those those Dimensions as well as the slightly um irregular shape of the property that you can see on this exhibit on page 19 the site plan diagram really create that small building envelope that we're facing the challenge with um in terms of impervious coverage um again a variance is being requested here even though under the proposed conditions that we're on the submitted plan and that you see on your screen um the impervious coverage is being reduced from 7142 to 69.4 one so that's um it's about a a 2% reduction um as Mr degia noted uh we have had some discussions you know potentially with the neighbors regarding maintaining the existing um paper driveway which if that is the case um you know we will be requesting a a variance for impervious coverage as it would go up by 14 Square ft which is a nominal amount but it would take us over that current 71.42% um and you know that will come up later if if that is something that the um that the association is seeking to ask for tonight we will we will obviously um you know address that after later on in this this um presentation um in terms of building bu setbacks here are a few um just just really based on the the the what's being removed and what's being added we are looking at uh variances required for minimum combined sidey yard setbacks on both sides uh minimum left side building setback um that which is you know plan left as you're looking at this and also um minimum rear yard building setback so in terms of the left side and the combined setback um the are due to the uh renovation of the roof where the condition is really going to be substantially improved um where the roof where the roof overhang um which goes on over the next lot because of that cornice is no longer going to be in existence so you know while we are still um requesting a variance you'll see that you know for example the combine yard is um you know almost it's really almost negative because of what's there and the same with the um the the left yard building setback so we are going to have a a closer conforming status here for each of those and the same really goes for the rear yard setback um as you can see clearly from this exhibit the black and white hatching extends much further into the rear yard than um what is being proposed so again you know the rear yard setback is going from 20 feet to 30 feet or 29.17 feet to the gutter where 35t is proposed um so next slide please um and this is this is the same exhibit this is is a continuation of the variance list I you know it's a lot it's a lot but it's really it's really not much when you take it in total um so in terms of the setbacks and this it has to do with permitted projections and Equipment rather than the actual building we are similarly seeking variances for both minimum left side yard and right side yard um as well as the rear yard setback and the AC condenser setback that was discussed um same thing goes for the left side's rear yard because the the um in in some areas that new roof line is going to be in the with it's going to be adjacent it's going to be on the new build it's going to be on the actual building but in other areas it is going to be on the front porch so that's why there are technically two variances required here because the porch is permitted to project uh 4et into the setback um so four is required instead of eight as for the building um similarly as you the right yard re right side yard setback this also has to do with the replacement of the roof gutter where there are no gutters now um rear yard setback once again this has to do with the um the green proposed concrete porch you see on the rear there um again bringing in a a better condition and then finally the AC equipment setback um which um was dis previously discussed but there's you know there's some challenges into where they can be located on the site but 3 ft is required where one foot is proposed and that is um that is next to that area within the concr right in the area of the Concrete Front Porch where the cursor is right now and then um almost done um Building height to setback ratios which have been mentioned um we do require variances for these um where a maximum of 3 to one is permitted at present day it's almost incal calculable on the left hand side because of the fact that the roof overhang the roof does overhang onto the lot so you know while technically now it's going to be about zero where three is you know where where it's um where it does not does still not comply it is clearly a better condition in my opinion because it's not going to overhang um and that also has to do with there's also the 58.5 point to one which is obviously a very high number but given the existing conditions on the property I think that it's um it's it's again it represents an improvement and the same goes um for the right side setback that number is increasing slightly 56 5. 671 to one and that it has to do with the fact that the gutter is going to add um into that setback and just because of the fact this property is undersized and that the setback there is already small just that one you know the the small factor of the gutter does increase that there so you know that's one of the rare instances where we are requesting a new variance that you but but again it has lit it only has to do with the gutter we're not increasing the footprint of that porch and then finally um we do have a couple uh existing non-conforming conditions related to off street parking in the rear which one is the deficiency which is that 1.5 spaces per unit are required where two are existing um in terms of that again this is existing condition and I would note that also the building size is being reduced as are the number of bedrooms so um you know in terms if you look at population even though the number of units is staying the same the potential population of this dwelling you know the number of residents is really going down um minimum parking space size 9 by 19 is required we're 8.8 feet wide in my opinion this is di Minimus um again and also and this is a residential site where people are going to be very familiar with their lots and has not been an issue thus far and the same goes for parking space setback um this is 1.25 ft from the rear yard lot line because of the unique configuration of this lot um with regards to Firestone core you know this again has not been an issue in the past and it's not intended to be going forward um so just to briefly now that I've gone through the variances you know just to briefly touch on the proofs um the f is a d variance um however as a D4 variance it's looked at as the type of variance that um excuse me mar uh Marty can you go back to the last slide please just so I have that in front of me for this thank you back to slide 19 the D4 variants is in some ways almost while it rises to the level of a d variance per the municipal land use law in a lot of ways it it is similar to the C variance that it affects the built condition rather than the use so the standard of proof for looking at a d variance as this board has probably heard from other planners in my position is um you look at it um how the property can accommodate you know whe whether the property can accommodate the additional F rather than it doesn't have to be show that it's particularly suited or anything like that and they also do have to show the the negative criteria so I think in this case this is pretty clear cut in my opinion from a planning perspective which is that the f is substantially over the limit right now it is proposed to be reduced and this is all in conjunction with an overall substantial Improvement to the property um I think as you saw from the prior slides um this is it's obviously going to be an aesthetic Improvement um but I think it's also going to serve as an improvement in for variety of reasons you know just High better living conditions um light air and open space you know with the new configurations and getting rid of portions of the property these are those old additions that are have kind of deteriorated over the years um and really you know adding storm new storm water management features you even something like a gutter that really does function as a storm water management feature so you know in my opinion I I believe that that standard of proof is met here because of the fact that it is existing condition that is being substantially uh reduced in conjunction with all of the other um the other improvements to the site um with regard to the um you know minimum lot area and dimensions you know this is this is the case where I I know that per of the ordinance that that because this is a two family home it is it is not considered to necessarily be pre-existing but these are items where there's no change proposed there's no opportunity to to get other land and given that situation that's why the university has made the decision in pursuing you know with their design team to make these improvements on the property that actually are reducing its size um and therefore bring it into closer conformance given the uh conditions that exist on the lot um with regards to impervious coverage um either you know and this goes to the case where whe whether it's being we do need a variance whether or not it's being uh maintained at this level which again is a reduction and while it's a small reduction I think in combination with all of the other proposals um and I would note that you know just for the C variances as I go through them now I think that this is a case where there obviously are there is a hardship on the property in terms of the C1 criteria um and that has to do with the the lot size the existing conditions and a lot of these these pre-existing non-conformities um however I think that there's also some Casa there's also case in here for um reviewing these under the C2 criteria and granting them as well in which the benefits outweigh the detriment um because some you know some of these choices like proposing the gutter which with which impacts the sidey setbacks um that um that you know that's something where the benefits are going to outweigh the detriments in my opinion um and again this is I'm not going to go through each of these individually because I think that it really comes through um just really a whole a whole um you know holistic way of of improving this problem property um next slide please we're going to go back now to slide 20 um and here again you know just in terms of the permitted projections this is very similar proofs in my opinion to the uh to to this to the principal building setbacks you have an existing condition there some cases it's being made better um and the places where it's not it's really at the service of improving the overall site um with with the the new with the new um the new upgrades um Building height to setback ratio this is also a tricky one here um just just in terms of the where the numbers I think are overstating what the actual situation is here where it is not not going to have any it's not going to even where the numbers are going up in my opinion it's not going to have any negative impact on the streetscape or the neighborhood design character or any of the um the items that are uh looked at for that ordinance um terms of off street parking I I think I I stated my opinion on each of those which is that it's really di Minimus and it is continuation of the pre-existing non-conforming use um basically in some um in terms of the negative criteria we look at um whether you have to determine whether this property will have any substantial detriment to the public good um which I you know T typically means to say surrounding properties um and in my opinion no it will not um you know we've taken the extra step as uh we may may hear from later on in this proceeding of of coordinating with the neighbors and we are willing to work with them just which is I think is a very crucial component here given the um the small lot size and the closeness within so you know I think it's going to be an overall major a aesthetic Improvement um and that even though in terms of the um the impairment of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance I do not see any substantial impairment as a result of this application this is a unique property it's an old two family house on an undersized lot that has you know maybe not seen um you know maybe hasn't seen as much love recently and they're really looking to have a total uh renovation of it that really bring it back to its you know it's its historic you know it's its historic character and really uh just improving the whole site so while there are a lot of um of variances here that are technicalities and I don't want to say technicalities because we do require them but you know they're rather granular in this sense of the actual existing propo and proposed conditions so you know in my opinion this advances several purposes of zoning um provides additional light air and open space um promotes the general welfare um all of these I think are by bringing it into greater greater conformance with the ordinance even though it's slight um there's also um you know it keeps an a two family house that in its exist in its condition that continues to provide residential uses in um in locations where where they're appropriate not appropriate densities because nothing's being increased here and it actually is being decreased so um you know in my opinion given the reasons above um I think that from what the proposal that you've heard the presentation you've heard tonight in my opinion um the D4 and the C variances can can all be granted under the uh the proofs set forth so I have nothing further directly um but happy to answer any questions board members any questions the planner okay Mr degia please proceed thank you I think uh if we go to the next slide I think that was it we do have our Consultants here for questions we have um the civil engineer as well and we also have um the project manager um in addition to the testimony you just heard from our planner and architect do you intend to have them testify or are they just available we want speak they're available yes they Mr chair they're available for questions um we didn't see any real civil um testimony necessary here um but uh again we have our engineer here for for questions okay thank you board members any questions of the witnesses or the two additional experts okay um Mr D do you want to sum up and then we'll go into Executives uh we'll go into we'll open this up to the public uh sure um so I I think you know as I stated in our introduction if you take a look at this it's a it's a Charming old building that is really really being Advanced uh very quite nicely in keeping with the neighborhood and um the other structures around it um we are actually reducing the scale a little bit we're reducing the floor area um we're making a lot of um improvements and as I said when you take a look at the list of the number of variances you really got to focus at um how we are really improving the property and meeting all of the criteria that our planner went through so we we're very excited about the project we think it's a it's a wonderful um renovation and a very done very carefully and sensitive you know in a sensitive manner um not only to the structure itself but to the neighbors and um the the neighborhood thank you okay um at this time we're going to open up the hearing to the public for public comments if you want to comment please indicate that by uh raising your hand on the bottom of the panel uh Mr degia can you take that elevation down please absolutely I do that by telling uh Martha please take them down just so we can have more screen space here yes thank you okay thank you um Claudia has anyone indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application Claudia you're muted one second please thank you [Music] good evening can you uh see me hello it's yes gentlemen are you both uh testifying together or I think I think I should go first I'm the to the homeown association all right Mr grief um yes you said you are the are you the president of the farstone cor do you swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful I do thank you well good evening everyone uh just my background I am the President of the homeowners association directly adjacent to this property uh my background I'm an engineer structural engineer I've actually worked with uh The sprb Advisory Board to Princeton uh board and we have some questions we are immediately adjacent to this property we are looking forward actually to the work that's going to be proposed by Princeton it will be an improvement to a building that has really needed improvements so this is actually a good thing the idea though of working directly adjacent to our property we have some concerns for example we don't know if there's going to be some underpinning in the foundation and from my experience that can be problems to our property so I didn't hear anything about underpinning increasing the depth of the basement and we'd like to know if that's going to be part of this work should I ask questions one by one or should I keep going I I can answer that if we want to do this one by one excuse me why why don't we get all the questions out there and then we'll answer them at the the uh end okay I'm fine with that as well um the other concern we have is we've been maintaining the property because there's been quite a long time that this property has been abandoned we we've actually hired kale Nursery we've reconstructed the property uh perimeter with new um vegetation brush um they call the Green Giant and they are very very helpful for us to have a visual barrier between our neighbors and our property we have maintained the um the the pavers they're very quaint they have this um a really an unusual uh view of how we look at our property our Courtyard is uh is like Williamsburg everyone says the brick is very very Williamsburg like and then the pavers are like Stone Cobblestone but they're not really they're concrete papers and we really like that so we propos that Princeton do not remove the end of the uh the TW stall parking area and keep that curb which is Belgian block and keep the pavers and we do realize there's a problem with the drain we have been working on our drains throughout the the courtyard and it's a very simple matter of digging down fixing the piping if it's necessary replacing uh pavers and putting concrete apron around that so I think that they're saying that they're willing to consider that if the board will approve a variance because of the perme permeable uh drainage right in that area so I like like that we're all in agreement this is a very good thing um the let's see damage to our property now whenever there's construction there's a possibility there damage to our property our property is right next to this building it's as was shown in that drawing we are one foot away from their Foundation uh what happens if there is damage to our property can can we we have a resolution that if there are damages that our engineer which will be me can work with Princeton to resolve the repair so that is Equitable um then lastly we'd like to know who the the point person that we can contact for coordination because we have not heard anything except this letter that came out that is proposing this work just last week and I would like to know who that point person is so we can work together and understand how this this work will be performed they were using our Courtyard our driveway and this is U this is our concern okay okay I think uh Mr degia do you and your team want to respond to their four questions yeah absolutely we'll go in order just to keep it well first of all I I'll start with an easy one Marta who's on the screen is the person that you would contact so um she would be the person that we coordinate and and we do Envision being you know the university has a policy of being a good neighbor and we do Envision sitting down and working with you and discussing um the concerns many of the topics that you've brought up um really are more related to means and methods of construction and not something that we typically have or discuss with the the zoning board but our you know intent is certainly um to sit down with you or members of the Firestone Association just to kind of discuss you know the next steps assuming that the board grants approval here we will talk about you know those those items yes um so let's let's go to the very first question you asked about the underpinning um so have our architect respond um the simple answer is no we are not underpinning at all so okay thank you in other words we're not lowering that basement I think that was your concern we are not yes exactly because that tends to make problems with the soil condition around your foundation and it can make damages so I appreciate that thank you y agreed um and as I indicated at the beginning of um or somewhere along Our Testimony um we have no objection to um keeping the parking spaces and Curbing and and plantings on our property the way they are today so long as the board is comfortable with it it sounds like the uh Firestone Association would like to keep that parking area the way it is now just be clear that's Princeton University property and it's you know their that section at least is their property and they will you know use those parking spaces and you know maintain that area but we certainly um you know have no objection to keeping it the way it is so long as this board uh grants the additional impervious coverage uh variance and again it's really a dominous amount we're talking 14 square feet right it's less than not even it's I was going to say less than 1% but it's actually less than half of a percent so you know when you do the percentage so it's a very small amount it's something that we would be happy to do as a good neighbor and um so that that's our position I don't know where the board falls on that um let me see what was some of the other questions the last one I believe was damage to their property again you know whenever there's construction there you know a near a property line it's not really something that we would we would get into with the zoning or planning board but I mean we're clearly going to take care of any damage to a neighbor's property that our construction team um you know does so if if we you know that's something that we will you know we can sit down and talk to you guys about it and and how we want to go through that and you could talk to our project manager but you know honestly ly if we're damaging another property we're not going to run away and and you know from it we are going to take care of it can I ask one more question yes all right um we have planted vegetation around bushes around that property and we took that on ourselves it's Capital Improvement is it something that you are going to protect as well as the the portion of the uh adjacent property that we own are you going to protect the the vegetation the shrub that that we feel is is important so you know there's definitely a distinction between plantings on your property and your the homeowners association property and plantings on our property in terms of you know just in terms of looking at it what I can say say Harold is that I would probably recommend that we schedule some sort of site Vis visit to go through and just to kind of address those those issues um you know we if the board and and Marta's raising her here and I'll let her speak you know and we'll have her speak in a second you know if if the board so grants um the variance uh for impervious allows us to keep that section where those um I want to call them arbores are you know that I I'm not sure who planted those but you know we have you know we could certainly maintain that and and keep it in a in a nice um condition um but again my recommendation is to kind of just walk the site there are going to be some plantings on our property that may be impacted and I can't you know go around and talk about what shrubs and what flowers um but I certainly think we can do it as a you know together you know as a good neighbors in a in a meeting Marta do you want yeah I was I was just going to suggest that we in fact do have a meeting to discuss Logistics prior to construction so when when we go um to have um contractors bid on the project the expectation of how um you know protection to your property and how we are preventing uh damage is there for all the biders to understand so we don't come into a situation in in which we start construction and there's no um nothing in place you know to prevent uh that damage from occurring well in my letter I propose that Princeton protects their vegetation during construction at the Princeton University sites and perhaps a similar courtesy protection can be implied in our in our Zone as well uh there's a very strange this is so tight our properties are so tight together there's actually a little triangular they actually kind of crisscross like this you know they have a um yeah it's very it's very tight there's a triangular section that has vegetation and we've been trimming it and Princeton's been trimming it but at the end of this construction that's going to be gone on so there's there's certain parts that we never really cared about but that is going to have to be considered as well but we really care about those uh the vegetation that we planted next to our neighbors because that's a visual barrier so we really really like that just in the instance of time not that I want to allow you to speak the university and and yourselves have agreed to get together thank you and and I think that's important so I I can assume that you'll be able to work that out I appreciate the time and I understand you're all volunteers there so thank you you're welcome laia um do we have any other people who would like to speak I think there was one other yes Matthew I think it's Matthew okay yes can you can you see me yes we can see in very well my name is Matt pin I work with haral as a neighbor of the fire stone community I was not sure technically speaking if Aral would be able to speak up our concerns which he did so I don't have anything else to report except the fact that we all agree that this beautification and inovation project is uh is is well designed and we are welcoming it in our community very good thank you okay Claudia anyone else uh indicated they'd like to speak cloria no more hands good thank you okay so I will close the public portion of the hearing Mr deia would you like to sum up before we go into executive session one thing though let me just ask the board it is in fact 10:56 uh we appear to be getting close to um coming to a resolution of this case do you want to continue on or do you want to carry it until next hearing I for one think we're close enough that we should probably just move ahead and see how far we get in the next few minutes I I agree Steve okay thank you okay so let's keep going okay yeah thank you I really don't have much to say I I think this is a Charming uh structure I think we put a lot of care into coming up with a a really nice um Improvement and renovation um we're looking forward to working with the neighbors and um you know if the board so uh grants to add that additional variance our notice certainly is um broad enough to include that catchall so um we would we would appreciate you considering that since our neighbors feel very strongly about leaving the area as it is today and by the way it looks it looks nice and again we're talking about 14 square feet okay thank you all right um if there are no other questions of the applicant the witnesses uh by the board um let's go into executive session um board members questions comments motions I I just make a comment I think this is a very well-thought out Improvement to what's there um I don't want to call what's there in isore but this is clearly an improvement in my mind and to the extent it's possible to deal you know with the constraints of the geometry of the the lot they've done their best so I'm I'm in favor of this I would agree with with George I would say though we're a little close to eyesore than you think we are but but I think the uh I think the architectural treatment of the existing building is very well done very well thought out any other comments if not if someone would like to make a motion I I will move that we accept the variances now this additional variance that we're ask they're asking for also the pavers and the that additional covers yes okay thank you thank you second anyone second thank you discussion of the motion and R or okay Claudia can you call the rooll please miss Chen yes Miss Coulson yes Mr Floy yes Mr Stein yes chairman Cohen yes thank you thank you we really appreciate your time you're welcome nice project thank you okay you're welcome okay if we uh right 11 there's nothing else to discuss it's 11 o'clock you did it right on 11 that's it perfect timing we'll call it an evening thank you very much thank you very much night thanks night nice project night yes thanks thank you okay good night Derek hey have a good night Steve take care you too bye bye bye