02:41:15The board’s deliberation on the camp’s variance was a focal point of the meeting. The camp, which had operated temporarily with board approval, sought a more permanent status. The applicant presented compelling arguments for the camp’s continuation, citing its contribution to the community by providing essential childcare services and creating jobs. The camp’s operations in the previous summer were reported to have minimal negative impacts, with over 400 children participating, many of whom were local to Princeton.

Concerns about the camp’s for-profit status were central to the discussion. Princeton’s zoning regulations traditionally favor nonprofit operations, creating a conflict with the camp’s business model. Board members grappled with the implications of approving a variance that might set a precedent for other for-profit entities. One member questioned the rationale behind the existing zoning code, noting the lack of clarity about the prohibition on for-profit camps.

The applicant’s proposal included an increase in camper capacity from 150 to 220, reflecting growing demand. This expansion prompted questions about infrastructure and the camp’s ability to accommodate more participants without affecting the surrounding area negatively. The applicant assured the board that the camp’s facilities could handle the increased numbers, citing underutilized space from previous operations.

41:21Board members engaged in a nuanced debate about the duration of the variance. Some advocated for a shorter term to ensure regular reviews, while others proposed a longer period to reduce the administrative burden on the camp. Ultimately, the board settled on a five-year term, providing time for the town to re-evaluate its zoning regulations in light of ongoing efforts to modernize and harmonize these codes.

18:25In addition to the camp’s variance, the board also considered applications involving historic preservation and accessibility improvements for the Princeton University eating clubs. The applications highlighted the challenges of integrating modern accessibility features into historic structures. One proposal involved adding an elevator to the Tower Club on Prospect Avenue, which required variances due to its impact on building coverage and setbacks. The Historic Preservation Commission generally supported the changes but noted concerns about exterior accessibility.

Another project, concerning the Princeton Charter Club, sought approval for additions that included a new elevator and terrace. The Historic Preservation Commission praised the sensitive design choices that maintained the property’s historic integrity. The zoning board scrutinized aspects of parking, bicycle provisions, and compliance with zoning requirements.