The board’s decision to extend the vested rights for the 21 Wiggins Street project was based on the absence of any zoning changes since the original approval and the continued alignment with the master plan goals. Representatives from 21 Wiggins LLC assured the board that they were working towards meeting the conditions of approval and satisfying the resolution stipulations for the project. The extension reflects the board’s recognition of the challenges posed by the pandemic and the economy on development timelines.

Following the 21 Wiggins Street discussion, the meeting shifted focus to the Gulick Settlement on Princeton Kingston Road, a minor subdivision proposal involving a historic property. The board confirmed that proper notice for the hearing had been given, thus establishing their jurisdiction. However, the hearing was adjourned before a discussion could take place.

Board member Owen O’Donnell clarified the nature of the subdivision at the Gulick Settlement, explaining that it entailed a lot line adjustment within the Kingston Mill historic district to make a non-compliant flag lot conform to current zoning requirements. The board considered the applicant’s proposal, which included a waiver request concerning fire protection planning and a tax payment arrangement that brought the lot’s taxes up to date, thus allowing the sale to proceed.

The lot line adjustment was designed to transfer a portion of land from one lot to another. Additionally, the Princeton staff recommended relocating the existing driveway to better utilize the traditional pole portion of the lot. The board entertained discussions surrounding the driveway’s new location, particularly its proximity to wetlands and the increase in impervious cover it might entail.

Claudia Wilson Anderson, a board member, raised concerns about the historical context of the flag lot, referencing a 2002 settlement mandating that funds from the parcel’s sale be earmarked for renovating a historic home. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) expressed their support for the subdivision, emphasizing the historical importance of the property’s access and circulation points, which were echoed by board members Mia Sacks and Julie Capozzoli.

Further discussion revolved around the tax status of the flag lot, with the applicant indicating that significant payments had been made to cover all outstanding taxes, thus preventing a sale in December. A debate ensued over the proposed driveway, especially considering its potential environmental impact and historical significance. The HPC’s endorsement of the application was noted, along with the board’s overall support for the subdivision’s approval.

As the meeting progressed, questions were raised about the accuracy of the final plat for the subdivision, specifically whether it adhered to the original subdivision plan as per file map 1518. The board stressed the importance of ensuring the correct presentation of information and the need to verify the proposed plan’s accuracy. The applicant communicated a willingness to assist in resolving any discrepancies, and the board subsequently approved the lot line transfer as a minor subdivision with the aforementioned conditions and waivers.