The board expressed relief and gratitude for the prompt resolution of the certification issue, which had lapsed in 2021 and was under revision. The certification aligns with Green Acres guidelines and is important for securing state funding for open space projects, providing a steady flow of grants to local partners. This resolution is particularly significant for community efforts to maintain and enhance recreational spaces in Princeton.

In addition to securing the certification, the board approved several resolutions for minor subdivisions and site plans. Among these was a minor subdivision on Princeton Kingston Road and a more complex subdivision with variances on Jefferson Road, which included an amendment to the language regarding the eastern lot’s front porch compliance with the zoning ordinance. Both resolutions were carried after the necessary adjustments.

A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to reviewing capital projects for Princeton Public Schools. Representatives from the schools presented five proposed projects across three schools. The projects included two additions at Princeton Middle School, situated on Walnut Lane, which serves grades six to eight. The proposal involves adding structures at the rear of the school and towards Walnut Lane.

Similarly, Little Brook School on Magnolia Lane, which serves pre-K to grade five, is set to receive two additions aimed at enhancing its facilities. The board emphasized the importance of community input, particularly addressing concerns raised by neighbors about the potential impact of these developments.

The discussion around Community Park School, located on Witherspoon Street, proved to be contentious. The proposal includes adding two structures to the rear of the existing school building and creating a new parking lot in a green space between the school’s driveway and the former Packy building on Witherspoon Street. This new parking area would expand the existing rear parking by 13 spaces, representing a 21% increase.

Board members and community participants raised concerns about the new parking lot’s impact on the area. One major issue was the lack of clarity around whether a formal easement agreement exists with the property owner of 300 Witherspoon to permit changes involving their property. Additionally, the proposal would necessitate the removal of portions of a chain-link fence previously approved as part of a minor site plan.

The area around Community Park School is notably busy, with traffic from nearby businesses such as High Toops, Capital Health, and various medical offices. Concerns were voiced that adding the new parking lot might not alleviate congestion during peak times and could worsen the situation due to the additional curb cut. The board questioned the necessity of the proposed 36 additional parking spaces, suggesting that existing parking facilities in the area, including those at the community park and municipal building, might already meet the demand through shared usage patterns.

Safety and accessibility for students and parents who walk or bike to school were also concerns. The proposed changes could make the school less inviting for these groups, introducing more vehicle traffic near the school.

Environmental impacts were also a point of discussion, particularly the potential loss of green space and mature trees. The proposed green area includes over two dozen healthy trees that contribute to stormwater management. Given the significant reduction in Princeton’s tree canopy due to various utility projects in recent years, preserving these trees was emphasized.

The meeting also covered procedural aspects related to the parking lot proposal at Community Park School. The business administrator for the Princeton Board of Education explained the need for submissions to the Department of Education for potential state aid and eligibility letters. The decision to bifurcate the projects—separating the parking lot from the building addition—was intentional to allow for distinct discussions on each project and to mitigate review process issues.

Further discussion touched on the implications of including the parking lot in a referendum without having secured necessary land use approvals, which could place the entire referendum in a legally vulnerable position. The board emphasized the need for clarity on this issue before proceeding.

The discussion revealed a commitment to balancing school security with accessibility and maintaining the aesthetic and functional integrity of existing school sites.