The application presented by the Trustees of Princeton University for 112, 114, and Prospect Avenue was a focal point of the meeting. Two board members recused themselves from this matter. The representatives from the university detailed their plans for the historic site, which included the rehabilitation of three buildings with the goal of enhancing accessibility and sustainability while preserving their historical character. Architect Ron McCoy provided a 34-slide presentation outlining the campus context, value proposition, and detailed descriptions of the site and buildings.

Key points of the university’s plan included the installation of a rain garden and the conversion of existing walkways to porous pavements to manage stormwater sustainably. The proposed accessibility ramp, which necessitated a variance due to its location within the side setback area, was a topic of in-depth discussion. The university’s team also addressed the ongoing inclusion of the site in the state historic district. The board and public engaged in a examination of the proposal, with questions and comments ensuring all aspects were carefully considered. The public comments were generally positive, with appreciation shown for the project’s adherence to historic preservation standards and for the university’s engagement with the community.

Another discussion during the meeting centered on a proposed residential development at 112-116 Prospect Avenue. The debate focused on landscaping strategies, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, stormwater management, and architectural enhancements. The need for a 25-foot side yard variance to accommodate an accessible ramp on Prospect Avenue was deliberated. The board considered the benefits of the variance, which supported the rehabilitation of the houses and preserved the street’s character. Architectural plans aimed to comply with historic standards, with strategies to retain exterior historic fabric and use historically appropriate paint colors.

The public comment portion of the meeting highlighted the Princeton Prospect Foundation’s restoration and rehabilitation efforts of three Victorian houses. The community expressed gratitude to the University for saving the historic buildings and commended the thoughtfulness of the restoration plan.

The discussion then turned to a minor subdivision with variances for a property on Jefferson Road, where the applicant, Estate Shore, presented changes to their project in response to feedback from the board, staff, and neighbors. The board acknowledged the proper notice for the hearing and established jurisdiction. The applicant’s representative testified about the redesigned homes, including a rotated house and adjusted setbacks to conform with requirements. The board raised concerns about the alignment of porches on the street and the potential impact on the streetscape. The public and the board engaged in discussions about the changes and variances, with particular focus on the impact on neighborhood conformity and the preservation of trees.

Residents expressed unified opposition to the proposed subdivision, citing concerns about increased traffic, the impact on neighborhood character, and the negative precedent it could set. One resident specifically criticized the ordinance allowing developers to build multiple houses on a single plot, emphasizing the fundamental issue it poses. The board members raised several concerns, with discussions on stormwater impact, sidewalk presence, and the potential removal of trees. The debate also included the impact of the subdivision on housing policy and tree canopy, as well as the practicality of shared driveways.