good evening and welcome this is a special meeting of the Princeton planning board on April 11th 2024 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this special meeting has been given by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on the 22nd day of March 2024 notice of this meeting has been posted to the municipal website Princeton nj.gov calendar notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton planning board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Friday January 12th 2024 please note that this meeting is being recorded during hearings on applications for development members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions public comment is heard by the board after an applicant's Representatives have finished their presentations and have been questioned by plan board members and staff those wishing to comment when the time comes wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star n oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised we ask with respect that members of the public express your views in 3 minutes or less we will will have a countdown clock to help speakers keep track of time please note that speakers who exceed 3 minutes will be interrupted in appropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted Carrie will you call the role Please Mr bimer here miss capazo here Mr Cohen here Mr McOwen here miss Nuka Mr odonnell here miss pearlmutter miss pearlmutter here thank you Miss sax here Mr Taylor Miss Wilson Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here and pvy just arrived ah and hell thank you um car you said that Mr Taylor would be joining us by phone is he not in the uh attendee was he not in yes I just he whoever that iPhone person is declined my invitation so I'm writing him now asking if that was him and I haven't heard that okay okay so I'm working on it okay thank you um announcements any announcements from staff um or board members uh Justin do you yes I do Madam chair uh and good evening board uh board members and members of the public um just one quick announcement uh you might have seen in some of the newspapers recently uh discussion about the lwin herent toown property uh that this board has seen over the past four couple years um that application and you might have seen it in the context of the municipality uh the council passing a resolution to fund the purchase of that for open space um as of now we have not had that application formally withdrawn and I don't believe the municipality is formally the owner yet kind of negating the application uh so we don't have a date for that as we were still waiting for things I'll advise the board if anything changes but in some ways it's still kind of an active application before the board okay thank you for that any other any other um announcements um pretty sure we do not have any subcommittee reports tonight is that correct that's correct okay Justin's nodding his head um so let's look at minutes we have two sets of minutes one from December 6th it was a a special meeting uh any comments or suggested edits for those minutes and if not would someone like to move them so moved thank you Mr Macwan uh moved by Alvin Macwan seconded by Mr Cohen thank you um I'm sorry Mr Cohen was not a present at the sixth sorry about okay also I would note that I wasn't president on the 14th and miss capaz were not present I have Mr bod sorry I have them I'm sorry I I have them in front of me so who's eligible to vote on the um December 6th minutes uh that would be Mr mcowan Mr odonnell Mr Quinn oh he's no longer here Mr bodimer and yourself Mrs wellson okay Mr seconded by Mr odonnell uh all in favor please say I I I thank you or okay thank you and for um the December 14th minutes that was a a regular meeting um can you tell us Carrie who is certain miss capoli Mr Cohen Mr adonal Miss sax and yourself Mrs Wilson thank you any um question questions uh or suggestions for those minutes seeing none would someone who's eligible to vote like to move them moved by Mr Cohen seconded by Mr odonnell all in favor please say I I I any opposed okay um next up we have excuse me an application from uh Morino and Marlin Elli this is continued from March 21st 2024 this is a minor subdivision and site plan with variances at 469 Ying street block 7202 lot 13 and this is file number P 2322 d255 mspm uh Mr meller you're on mute before we get started um David and Owen were not at the last meeting have you either read a transcript or listen to the tape yes you have okay and you've certified yes I did okay and Owen what about you yes I've also submitted the certification okay so you're both eligible to vote I should have confirmed that yes Sherry okay um Mr Lesco for some reason I'm oh there you are moved around moved to do a different location on my screen um just a quick setting the table for us I think would be helpful and Mr Mueller uh any comments that you have um after Justin speaks yeah um specific to the um the things for this board to keep in mind um as we proceed with an application with with multiple variances I think it's important for us to sort of get um uh reminded SL schooled uh before before we commence so go ahead Justin and then Jerry thank you madam chair and Jerry I'm not sure if you swore me in last time oh okay um if you could raise your right hand yes you swear affirmed testimony about to give me the truth yes I do so swor affirmed I believe I did but uh in any event can't hurt to do it twice yep uh I'm going to share my screen Madam chair um just to or us to the site and what I'm showing in a second what I'm showing now uh is uh the publicly available NJ parcel Explorer created by Rowan University the subject parcel is block 722 lot 13 highlighted in blue here it fronts Ying Street uh with tur Hune Road not too far to the South and North Harrison Street not too far to the east uh and you could see the Princeton shopping center of course uh kind of catty corner uh off to the side here um the adjacent properties on all sides are residential and in the r six zone of the former Township as is the subject parcel um but neither the Lots nor the houses on them are uniform as you look around uh just within the block of the subject parcel you'll see lots ranging from about uh two10 of an acre uh to just about just above four10 of an acre uh as well the houses on the same side of Ewing as a subject parcel are generally smaller and close to the street uh whereas the ones across uh have deeper setbacks and are larger in size with some newer construction many of the homes in the neighborhood have not been redeveloped from their original post-war construction uh though several in the area appear to H appear to have been torn down and rebuilt in recent years including some to the north uh and to the west of the subject parcel um 469 Ewing Street is among one of the larger Lots at 044 acres and it currently includes a two-story 3,00 00 foot residential dwelling which dates back to 1947 and includes an additional unit that predates the accessory dwelling unit ordinance but was never formerly approved as one uh the homes on the two adjacent Parcels on each side to both the North and the South of this property range from about 880 square feet to 1770 square feet and the subject property is not within any locally designated historic district it was classified as Minor by the site plan Committee in early March uh so moving on to the application itself um I'm going to switch to and hopefully you could see it uh and I see councilman Cohen as a hand yeah I'm sorry to interrupt Justin but just in terms of the existing accessory unit that's on the site when you say that it's not consistent with the current ordinance there was a flat ordinance in the former Township prior to the current Adu ordinance are you also saying that it was not conforming to that ordinance than it ever was recorded as uh a unit either before or after the passage of the Adu unit um ordinance uh I don't have that information uh off the top of my head hopefully the applicant can shed some light on that uh after the introduction okay thanks good question and Justin let's let's mark uh your first uh area view is exhibit A1 I'm sorry exhibit pb1 and what we're showing now okay and I see Mr Bridger has his hand up probably to answer councilman Cohen's question hey DK thank you chair Madam chair um yes there uh was a flat in the existing house but it was never approved no application was filed an application was filed uh last year to uh approve it to make the changes consistent with the current ordinance but I don't believe it was ever acted upon okay thank you yeah Derek did I swear you in the last time I thought I did I believe you did I'm happy to swear again thank you thank y uh so moving on to the application itself I've switched to the applicants grading andrie protection plan from within their Civ uh civil engineering plan set this is uh sheet number three and as Jerry said this will be pb2 um youing street is to the right of your screen here which means to will be on the top so this is kind of flipped from what I just showed uh North is at the bottom of the screen uh the applicant proposes subdividing the current one lot into 2.22 acre lots to then build one accessory dwelling unit in the front of each lot one single family home in the middle of each lot and a garage in the rear of each lot all of the properties front a proposed shared driveway which shows six parking spaces uh one in front of each dwelling as well as one be in the garage uh excuse me and Rain Gardens would be located in the front towards Ying Street uh many of the existing trees on the site would be removed either because of the site plan or because of construction damage uh and the municipal landscape architect and Municipal arborus have written memos about the trees and rain Gardens and I'll defer to them later on um this application or or this applicant came before the board for a concept review in December uh 201 21 showing this General concept uh though not nearly this level of detail um including you know the the trees to be removed or the number of variances which is you know understood at a concept review um and we certainly appreciate them for taking the time uh to come for a concept review um but just a reminder for everyone that concept reviews and the comments from individuals there both from the board and the applicant are not binding uh at that concept review the term Cottage Court was used in reference to this type of development while that might be the inspiration for this development this is not truly a Cottage Court uh which is a multif family development type consisting of identical or nearly identical Cottages fronting a shared green or pedestrian space uh and often developed on one lot with off street parking spaces at the perimeter of the lot if they exist at all um this development uh or or this proposal does not meet the definition of Cottage Court as it contains buildings uh with different areas Heights sizes um and utilizes the Adu ordinance um the dwellings front on a driveway and it does not contain pedestrian Pathways or a shared Courtyard uh and the parking spaces are located within the center of the two lots um so that being said um I would advise the board to consider this application as a subdivision application from one lot to two lots with two houses two adus and two garages around a shared driveway not as a Cottage Court um going into the proposed buildings each of the twostory adus is 790 Square uh 796 square feet in area of the 800 foot maximum and each includes two bedrooms and two bathrooms uh each three-story primary dwelling is 35 ft in height and includes four bedrooms and three bathrooms plus a basement for a total of 1882 square feet in floor area uh and the garages in the rear are essentially one structure subdivided down the middle the proposed lot line uh and slope from about 12 feet in height in the front to a little over 10 ft uh in the rear uh so originally 18 variances were identified uh with this application as most are duplicated on each of the Lots um since the March 21st meeting of the board uh revised architectural plans have been submitted which remove uh five variant requests related to the sidewall fenestration of three of the structures so uh the distance of blank walls uh and one variance related to the height of one of the structures was also removed uh 12 variants requests still remain six of them are related to the subdivision of land and those include two for lot area where a quarter acre is required and the two new Lots would be just under at 0.22 Acres each or about 12% smaller than the requirement um two variances for lot width where 85 ft is required and 61.5 ft is provided uh and two for lot Frontage where 85 ft is required and about 67 ft is provided on each lot uh the remaining six variances pertain to the structures um and really uh relate to the accessory dwelling units being in front of the primary structures uh as is not envisioned by the municipal uh Adu ordinance uh two of those relate to the entrances of each Adu towards the street uh where they are not permitted to face a street um then two of them are for the entrances of the primary dwellings which do not face the street because they face the back of the Adu and then two of the variances are are for uh the adus being in the front yard uh of each parcel uh Additionally the application uses the proportional uh floor area ratio of 28% rather than the 25% Allowed by the Zoning for a conforming lot um in somewhat simple terms floor area ratio or f as it'll probably be referred uh to the rest of the meeting uh is the number you get when you divide the amount of area on all floors and the structures uh the living space essentially on a lot over the total area of the lot um proportional F under our Municipal ordinance is intended to benefit non-conforming structures or conforming structures on a non-conforming lot so it does not seem appropriate to use it uh when creating two non-conforming lots with new non-conforming structures um and each lot shows about 27 .9% floor area ratio or 28% is that proportional F maximum um I also have some minor comments about circulation trees sidewalks and other things that I can address after the applicant's presentation uh but to to generally summarize and close out this introduction uh the board should consider this application as a subdivision of one lot into two lots with two new primary dwellings two new adus and two new garages proposed around a shared driveway uh the applicant should prove the positive reasons of how the variances outweigh their detriments and the proposal is better for the community uh than the zoning requirements uh they should also address the negative proofs of how the proposal would not create detriment to the public good the master plan and the zoning ordinance uh and within that the applicant should demonstrate why the 12 remaining variances are needed while at the same time most of the zoning standards uh are essentially maxed out um the Princeton master plan s increasing housing Supply and diversity of housing types and to welcome new growth in areas specifically like this one near the shopping center uh though it also mentions balancing that with maintaining the quality of life and fabric of Princeton's existing neighborhoods um the term missing middle housing is of course mentioned in the master plan uh though I'm not convinced these structures particularly four-bedroom three B uh houses meet that definition uh again when they're right at the maximum of what the zoning allows that being said if the board finds uh through the applicant's testimony that the positive reasons outweigh the negative ones uh the board should also consider what sort of conditions might be used to mitigate the impact of the new structures uh and these could include conditions on floor area ratio Heights of the buildings additional screenings or enhanced setbacks uh Mr Weissman and Mr Bridger are here uh Mr Dober milsky is here and they've all uh I I believe he's here already um they've all submitted reports and and are happy to I'm sure answer questions um and that's all I have for now Madam chair okay um I saw David's hand go up first and then Nat bodimer so before we go to Mr Muller David um I have two questions uh one may be better for the applicant but why do the plans appear to have the measles oh uh that you know I'm happy you brought that up these are notes from the program that this was drawn in um I have I downloaded a new Adobe Acrobat and it shows those on the PDF so um hopefully the applicant can show these without the measles I hope so but yeah that's a new I might have to delete this program Unfortunately they show up on my acrobat as well so it's not just you I mean when I so anyway um question of whether it's a feature or a bug it's a bug go ahead um the second question is uh more substantive it's for Mr Weissman um and I think I understand that this is not a major or a large project as relates to storm water based on our definition of 5,000 square feet of new impervious cover but the question I had is how close we are to to that definition because I know there are some comments about car circulation that might trigger more impervious coverage and um so so I just want to know are they comfortably below the standard for a large uh a large project Dan Weisman I I think you were sworn in last time but maybe we should don't maybe not okay go ahead Jerry Dan if you could raise your right hand Dan dooski you you here as well no okay Jerry there was one night he said he was gonna be about 20 minutes late because he has another meeting I think that might have been tonight uh Daniel if you can raise your right hand you swear or affirming the testimony you're about to give me the truth I do so oneir thank you um the applicant is indicated on their plans uh and in step's analysis they would agree uh the net change in impervious uh currently is 2885 Square F feet uh so there is a buffer of about 2100 square feet for additional impervious thanks uh n bimer uh thanks thank you very much Madam chair uh I had also just wanted to to to throw into the mix uh Justin you you you referred to a number of the the tests that the you know were part of the consideration of the Varian as I also wanted to just when you were giving your introduction you sort of think alluded to what my question was about which is has to do with lot size in the area I mean you were describing the lot sizes in the in the um in the neighborhood but I'm I'm just curious how um when we apply a test of whether the subdivided lots are consistent with the lot patterns in the neighborhood how we are supposed to assess that how far do we go from the subject properties when we're testing that how do how do we test it I mean is it like what's what's the the nature of the test when we compare uh to surrounding properties because I I I imagine that's part of what we should be considering as well even though I didn't hear you uh mention it specifically uh Jerry do you have a legal answer on that or do you want me to give my planning understanding you start with your planning understanding sure I I don't think there are any rules of thumb on that um I think it's really up to the applicant to prove the positive and the negative criteria you know to the extent that the board is comfortable with and that is allowed by the municipal land use law um and I think just based on you know both that argument and any mitigation that you know the board decides is needed to to kind of fulfill that um variances could be granted but it's not a you know I don't think there's a specific foot limit or or number of units or anything like that um to yeah so I can I can easily imagine the applicant making an argument us being persuaded by it but I mean I would we we we should be asking our Council for guidance as to whether the argument that's being made by the applicants is compliant with standards that have been put in place around the state or in other situations right is that is that a reasonable thing we should be doing may I jump in with my understanding and Jerry if it's wrong please correct me because I want to make sure about this too my understanding is that it is the applicant's responsibility the the entire burden of proof for um requesting any kind of variance lies with the applicant only and you know through expert Witnesses and if they planning expert if you find that person if any any board member finds um that testimony to be unpersuaded uve um then and it affects the way you vote then you need to say so when you vote that that is my understanding that the burden of proof uh positive and negative always lies entirely with the applicant and um and whether or not you know we buy it as individuals is is up to us is that I mean is that is that a fair summary Mr meller yeah it is okay thank you very much so now we we really haven't heard what their theory of the case is as to why they're entitled to the um uh to the sub and to the variances right that's yet to that's yet to be put on the table by Mr K it and and his Witnesses is there any anything Mr Mueller that you want to talk about on the front end about what specifically will be asked to decide um whether an application with lots of variances um you know is raises things that the board should be thinking about as we hear testimony we already covered the burden of proof question yeah well certainly one of the main points is simply what comes out of the decision by judge Loi in the Humber Street uh case where he said you know particularly because there were a lot of variances uh involved there and he said you've gotten into the realm of legislating this is beyond simply making adjustments to the zoning ordinance um you're now legislating and it is not the function of the planning board it's the function of the governing body and he struck it down basically for that reason so we want to be careful here because there is a substantial number of variances uh that have been requested um there's an separate is issue of does the board have the option of Simply granting the the subdivision which cuts through the the house conditioned upon the demolition of the house and leaving for later uh the question of the variances and that even if does if and if it does leave it for later that very well would should go to the zoning board I would think um and partly the decision in that regard I think the board has some real discretion here is with the variances granting the variances and accomplishing the development that they want necessary for the subdivision itself so those are two things I've think that the Board needs to be thinking about in addition to the other points that have been discussed okay um any other questions from board members before we turn to and could I could I Justin if he wants to jump in on any of that uh no not at this time I'd love toar from the applicant yeah may I ask Jerry could you just repeat that thesis I want to be sure I get it the last statement you made yeah it's I think the board has a lot of discretion in deciding whether to even hear the variances or just simply granting the subdivision conditioned upon the demolition of the house and have to do that because the house because the uh subdivision line cuts through the uh the house and deferring the decision on the uh on the variances with the Judgment that if the board decides it doesn't really need to Grant the variances and therefore permit the sub permit the development as proposed to Grant the subdivision and at that point it could it would defer the a decision on the um on the variances and since it's a site plan this would go to the uh but it's only two lots it would go to the zoning board so I don't want to I don't want to Prejudice board members if that's not too strong a word um um uh ahead of you know hearing testimony but I appreciate you're laying out that that consideration and that potential choice not potential choice that actual Choice uh that we may have uh later on tonight uh Miss pearlmutter and then Mr bodimer yeah I just have a question uh putting aside the question um that uh Mr Muller just the aspect that Mr merer just discussed I have a question for Justin and that is on this proportional f i don't fully could you clarify that a little bit more and say what what is the alternative to a proportional f sure so there's a section so with your traditional zoning there's a floor area ratio uh requirement um in this case it's 25% there's a section under our zoning code uh that allows for uh higher than what's allowed under the zoning through this truly mathematical equation um and it's intended for uh non-complying lots that exist or non-conforming structures that exist um so basically if something than predated zoning uh you know you had a lot that was smaller and uh you would need a higher percentage of that smaller lot to build a house it's in place you know generally for that um my comment was more towards creating non-complying Lots uh it doesn't necessarily uh you know seem like that's the intention of it and we we in fact um adopted a condition in the prior approval that said the proportional F cannot be used I think that was for the Lai had court uh approval I think we've done it a couple couple of times Sherry okay basically we've regularly um not granted the proportional F when the nonconformity was being created by the subdivision before the board so thank you David and that part of the ordinance dates back to I believe 1988 so it's not like it's a a new thing necessarily okay thanks thank you uh net bimer uh thank you madam sh I just wanted to clarify it would seem to me that if we are going to be presented with the the possibility of a subdivision conditioned on the demolition of the of the existing home that uh we would have a different set of arguments about the benefit of that compared to an argument about variances that would assume the new development and so that we could not consider the benefits of any prospective uh development along the lines of what we've been shown as part of the argument for the subdivision the subdivision would the subdivision have to stand on its own because you you'd still need a variance for the lot size would you not yes well six very there's two so there's two so there's two totally different sets of arguments for and pros and cons that the applicant would have to satisfied yes exactly and we could not consider the one basket when dealing with the other basket yeah okay thank you you welome okay um Mr Kennedy welcome back good evening m hope that at least some of the conversation was helpful to hear on the front end uh it was important for us um I will uh turn things over to you thank you so much and first before I start again um um ladies and gentlemen of of the board Madam chair and and your esteemed professionals my name is Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee here again for uh the homeowner applicants we do have one other person um if they haven't been moved over yet but uh uh the the homeowner himself will get some testimony from from from him Jimmy uh adiel is is is in the attendee room if we could move him over um um uh before we we start but there we we go thank you so much um Justin I'm sorry Ryan do you have any experts that you well we do then they're all but they're all in the room thankfully they they got their panelist links so we have them there um we've got um we'll hear from our engineer and planner uh Jim calik and our architect um Marina rabina this evening and and I know we got very far in discussion last time but I don't know that we actually swore them in yeah so if You' like to start there um yeah we can do that and I'll I'll uh um do my intro after we we're all sworn in that's great why don't why don't we why don't we do that um if uh those people that Ryan just uh refer to can uh raise their hands they're raised go ahead okay because as you know on my screen they and they don't come on until somebody says something you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth I do I do okay um so want airm please say your full name and spell your last name j James kamalak C hm i e l a k Marina Rina last name r u b i n a thank you what's else as well Jimmy a and that's a y o d l e okay thank you Marlin IOD Deli a y o D- l e and Mr Muller the record should show that um Mr IOD Del's first name is spelled j Mii my is the is on the application Mor oh okay okay I just when he's preparing a resolution I just want to make sure he refers to your name properly thank you uh Mr M thank you so much Madam chair um members of the board first thank you so much both for the the initial discussion that you had here with your professionals tonight and the discussion we had uh last month in in preparation for tonight we're very appreciative of the process that we've laid out here and and I think you heard from your prels correctly um in in really all regards here and a lot of very um interesting and and helpful comments were made and just as we start I'm going to hint on a few of them first as a as a reminder some of you were were here in December of 2022 for concept review and certainly agreed with Mr Leo's uh take on how that works we we heard and showed as concept and very much appreciated the opportunity to get that feedback this um uh 2 Adu two single family home subdivision design and and part of that feedback resulted in the plan that we'll be showing you tonight that does have um this we'll call them buckets there are as of last month there were maybe three but we're talking about of these variances um divided by each lot two buckets of variances one uh the ones um related to the size of the lots and you'll hear and see tonight uh you know to very kind of astute question before about the standard and and definitely agreed it you know it is it is our burden on the positive and and and negative um but you know how far out do you go well we we'll show you the neighborhood um and ultimately well there are lots bigger and smaller um but we'll we'll show you how this fits in um with other lots that are that are that are smaller on the Block and and the surrounding area and how we feel that these lot sized while slightly undersized fit in are actually bigger than many of the lot um in the neighborhood the second bucket and know we're talking about variances here um relate to the feedback we got from concept and one totally agree that's not binding and two just to make you guys more comfortable I think some of the interpretation on the number of variances uh kind of this was new two years ago um it's more refined now in terms of thinking about accessory structures in terms of neighborhood character and the main home addressing the street in terms of of the door of the Adu facing or not facing the street to be honest I think a lot of us myself included left concept thinking well it's just one variance you know we think that putting an Adu that's in front with it with uh yeah I should address the street or or face the street with a front door I me you know in my mind maybe at the time that was one variance when you when you look at it over time and with the the new uh way of interpreting these things that's developed over time since then you know it adds up to six um and over two lots uh Mr Mullen makes a a good point you need to be cognizant about whether this reaches that Humbert level now that was one lot and 16 variances we have two lots and 12 but you know we want to make sure that the board is comfortable and we'll be talking about that tonight and and frankly while we feel that's a better plan um with the adus in front with the doors of the smaller structure in the front facing the street um uh that has add up to six and we would be comfortable uh with a different plan um and coming back perhaps with with reversing that and removing all six of those variances but we want to talk through it because we think that is better and and also to Mr Muller's Point um we feel that the variances in the subdivision which are very much related to uh and we think a see two variants we'll hear about but are lots that are bigger than most in these neighborhood and ultimately if you come to the conclusion that that is appropriate for this neighborhood those justifications can be separate from the plan that we'll be showing you that triggers the the site plan and this Adu um configuration so to Mr Muller's Point as we show this and discuss it uh those are you know a very interesting approach to it and one that we're not opposed to we we're showing you what with the feedback we developed from concept we think is the best use of this site and the best plan for this property um but uh you know agree and recognize uh that those those comments uh you know ring true in some respect and and are you know happy to talk about this uh I'll apologize for the the measles I think my my computer was inoculated but we will be showing exhibits that do not you know have all those buttons across it and um on the current they call it Adu you know there's a there's a home on the site that you you'll you'll see that at one point perhaps was a flat that we were going to come back um as Mr Brier said there was a start of an application for Adu kind of pause that um uh while we thought of this ironically what would be required to make that a u in its prior in its prior flat condition compliant as an Adu now would be to move the front door that's there that faces the street to a different direction so if we had paused this subdivision application and gone back and said let's let's take that what used to be a flat part of the house resurrected as an Adu we would be moving the door around and there'll be a lot of discussion I think tonight about structures presenting or facing the street how front doors should be oriented um uh and and um and ultimately what makes the most sense you know those six variances would go away uh kind of like you know with with respect to what what happened last month it's our goal to to make sure that there are things that we can uh flexibility that the applicant has um we we want to show that and that is one of the things you know we we again we we feel we're going to show you something that makes the most sense and we think it's consistent with the general feedback that we got less of but we know that's not binding and and ultimately there will be a level of com for we think with this plan as presented um but ultimately it will be a kind of a cumulative um um thinking about whether that plan makes enough sense to Warrant that number of variances and we think it does we think it's different than Humbert one lot uh with 16 there but recognize there's no bright line there and and um you know weird for me as an applicant's attorney to say we want you to be comfortable but ultimately um the the priority of this applicant um homeowner by the way we're we're not it's it's interesting to talk about you know conditioning on the on the demolition you know that that those all will need to happen ultimately but you know they live here these are homeowners that have lived in this this this um this property rather than developer ultimately they will need some help to in um create what is envisioned here U But ultimately these are these are regular Princeton folks who are looking at what they think is best for their oversight Iz lot um on Ewing Street Ryan okay while you take a breath I want to interject a question yeah um and this relates to you know Jerry's remarks about the possibility of the board granting just the subdivision and not the site plan and based on what you are saying about the six variances related to the placement of the adus and the location of the front door going away if you reverse the buildings Jerry said something about being before the zoning board if we just granted the subdivision but I take from you that you would be as of right developers as long as the uh the primary residence was in front and the adus were in back once once the subdivision is granted you could easily come in with a completely conforming application for each of these Lots correct so I'll say yes though I'm going to back back a little bit away from the word easily because um again subsequent to concept I think in thinking this through the the understanding it you know you mentioned site plan before it is the two lots and a period of time and a cumulative number of dwellings essentially between adus as it turns out and the homes that ultimately could trigger site plan review so Mr mhler is completely correct a subdivision would allow would turn these into two lots just like most of them on this street frankly and and just every other owner with those lots many of which smaller than this one than these would Envision to be could come uh either as of right to build a a single family home with an Adu behind it or if they needed a bulk variance for driveway or something like that would go to the zoning board and that that is you're completely correct that that would be the situation if subdivided except that interestingly two subdivided Lots owned in common at one point by the same person if developed even independently within too close a period of time would trigger site plan review almost like why similar how to minor minor subdivisions if you keep adding them up would turn into a uh major subdivision a similar concept exists with site plans which we would trigger if we didn't wait long enough I honestly I think you know if we got to it and that's where the board's Comfort was and we might see a subdivision maybe a house at an Adu soon maybe someone five years from now coming and doing a a house in an Adu we would probably lose the the common driveway in that scenario maybe not necessarily but you know that that's part of the the site plan element of things um but you know again it's it's a common thing that you see throughout Princeton you know two homes with a shared driveway anyway it's possible that could happen but if they're not developed in tandem less likely you know if at the zoning board every month we we hear Well we'd love if you could do a share driveway with your neighbor well if they're not building the houses at the same time it's it's almost not going to happen here we have that opportunity potentially um but again to your to your point minus the time constraint for site plan review You've got it exactly right and we would either never be before the zoning board or perhaps a future owner would be there with a bulk variance or two about driveway size or or something like that yeah and and I just want to point out to the rest of the board that part of the reason that I'm asking this question is that I think um having this before us as a site plan gives us an opportunity to negotiate some favorable outcomes that might be lost um if we just grant the subdivision so I just want people to be thinking about that as you're thinking about Jerry's um suggestion thanks Mr Cohen um with that that'll that'll end my uh explanation and and not testimony um and I'll allow um we've got the homeowners here for those of you here in December of I gosh a year and a half ago you heard their story but if aot you know they're they're here at Prince residence and not developers and uh Jimmy and and Mar if you want to just quickly introduce yourself and and remind the board or tell the board that wasn't here for concept you know why you're looking at this and why this is your your your path and why you engag this team to kind of look at this for you yeah thanks Ryan and um good evening everyone so thanks again for reviewing the development plan for our property at 469 in Street um by way of introduction I'm Jimmy this m in I Deli and we are the owners of 469 Street we moved to Princeton 15 years ago during the uh during the recession you know rather traumatic planned relocation but our decision to move to Princeton proved to be perfect you know the town was welcoming to our family especially our children and who thrived in the neighbor in the community we deliberately purchased the house of a legal flat well which we found out in the last year now and also in this discussion that it wasn't legal but we actually did think it was legal and we actually test we it was a approved Department every year we went for permits to to to um to get the apartment um to rent out the apartment so it was a bit of a surprise to us that it wasn't um um now that we're talking about it but anyway at the time we we deliberately purchased a home with a legal flat now called Adu primarily so that we could financially afford to be in the community and it has become you know a critical part of our retirement strategy and uh we're very glad to see that the Princeton master plan kind of is following this sort of Direction um going forward um as our children went through Princeton Public School System all three all three all children went through prin Public School System all three children see Prin has their lifelong base anchored by us lastly my wife Marlon works for princet University and I work for a company called biohaven Pharmaceuticals which is based in yardi Pennsylvania so essentially that means that our professional lives continue to be rooted in the community um we are sharing all of this as context in terms of our gratitude and continued commitment to Princeton as empty nesters which triggered a lot of this new thinking for us uh we had listed our home for sale in 2022 with two listing options one listing had us moving into the Adu and selling our main house and uh this was actually our preferred approach but would require some investment for final compliance the second listing we placed was to sell the entire house as at the guidance of the sales agent the house has many Renovations that predate our ownership and we have found that modern buyers cannot accept the current floor plan and the primary reason is the fact that the primary bedroom is on the second floor while all the other bedrooms are on the first floor um the two offers we received were likely the result of would have resulted in substantial renovation or an expanded footprint to resolve the issue buyers were very interested because of the size of the lot which then gave us you know but gave very limited value to the home by our calculations anyway this prompted us to rethink our strategy the plan being presented today creates an option for us to remain in a smaller home in the community and neighborhood we love and to do it in a way that makes Financial sense today's meeting is a followup to the positive feedback we received at the concept review meeting you know quite a while ago now and we're very trans we've been very transparent from day one we continue to be transparent uh and showing you our full intent um uh with the property so we look forward to a favorable decision on our plans today and thank you again for taking the time thank you so much uh our our next uh Witness um our architect U Marina I know you've testified with this board many times but if you could briefly um introduce yourself in your credential so I could have you uh offered as an expert here this evening um good evening hopefully everybody can hear me okay yes thanks great so my name is Marina Rina I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey um I have a master's degree in architecture and structural engineering and I have test in front of uh multiple boards um both in the state of New Jersey and California uh hopefully that allows me to be an expert witness this evening we accept your qualifications and you're you're um testifying I mean I guess this is self-evident but as as an architect not with any other okay all right good that is my license yes so I will be the architect today yes all right uh and if that's okay I would like to share my screen assuming I can do the PowerPoint is that okay please do and Mr M this will be our one exhibit this evening um yep so am I doing this correctly hopefully a one yes right um okay let see if I can figure out it's going to work for me yay okay great so um and Justin already showed the context but um I'm going to quickly walk us through this again hopefully everybody's oriented um the site is located right here on Ying Street in very close proximity to the shopping center and um what is not shown here but this is very much walking distance to other destinations in town which makes this an amazing place to live and um walking distance to jobs at Princeton University City and downtown locations and this is very much walking distance to schools um here we are showing the outline of the site one more time Marina you as you go through this if you could say what slides are on oh goodness okay so this is going to be slide number four okay so if I forget hopefully somebody will help me and remind me um so this is the zoning map outlining that we are in the midst of um our six Township Zone uh okay great and as we were trying to organize our oh goodness um information we were trying to sort of figure out how to explain it and Ryan kept saying that this is we got to put these fences in buckets so this is exactly how we're going to be going about it so their first orange bucket so everybody's going to be oriented uh color wise and this is slat five this is Slide Five um have to do with lot size and um so area slightly undersized I will show exactly on the next um portion of the presentation and lot width is very much similar to other and lot Frontage even though it's the same fact that it's the same width it is counted as both Frontage and um width so that that's a a two-part so we allocate that our orange button bucket is basically all the things that have to do with the shape and size of the lot and they're very similar to other Lots in the neighborhood then we have our blue buckets which is what all the the discussion was and we feel that um this is the information that we presented at concept and received feedback and that's how we moved forward but as discussed if that is no longer the preferred way that could be rearranged that was our understanding of the feedback and we moved forward with that understanding based on the fact that it fits the neighborhood character and we will go through and explain how we feel that works that's slide seven now moving to eight and then um we used to have this green bucket which is why we had this confusion last time but it had to do with Windows and roofs there was some misunderstanding about that but as all eliminated no more green bucket no need to worry about it anymore so now we're going to talk about our orange bucket so this is slide 12 over here and this identifies uh from the staff memo what are the things that are requiring variances um right here so you could see it's the lot width lot Frontage which is kind of how wide it is and also because the lots are a little bit it's not a rectangle it's a parallelogram so I get a little bit narrower towards um the back uh so here is the lot in the content and hopefully everybody could see so we what we would like to point out the color coding here is all these red um lots that are in the same block literally one block away are right here they're existing they've been like that for a very long time they're 0. 21 acre while once we subdivide hopefully with your permission our larger lot um these newsly subdivided Lots would would be larger than these existing Lots so for example here we have this red outline that demonstrates that if these two lots 15 and 16 were combined they would be42 while this existing lot is 044 so it kind of puts it in perspective so these Lots on the opposite side of us they're um not conforming just um in a different way so the lot the required lot WID is 85 and um these are 75 so in all of this vicinity we're having a variety of non-conformances so we present to the left those are non-conforming but smaller than our lot to the right they're non-conforming but a little bigger than what we be a little bit bigger exactly so in the same there sort of multiple levels of non-conformity but these are already smaller than what we're proposing to be created today and um I think at the con review the question was is this a unique condition in just this block and I think um we went through and outlined uh this doesn't differentiate because they're multiple variances so these are all the Lots in the neighborhood that are not conforming in one way or another some are not wide enough some are not large enough some are not wide and don't have enough Frontage so there there there's a gamut of non-conformities of All Sorts so and we're dealing with sled 14 correct thank you so much for keeping track for me uh so hopefully that puts it a little bit in context and on here on the slide 15 going back to so this is one of our uh yeah Justin has a question uh yes uh thank you so I just want to clarify uh I I'm I'm losing track a little of the colors so when you say non-conforming do you mean lot size and lot they're non-conforming in some way we we were also trying to keep track and trying to color code in different way and we just we just that like Too Many Colors we're just going to show conforming nonconforming so the ones that were over here shown in red are non-conforming so for example right here next to us these are um these are non-conforming in width and Frontage okay so so just to clarify any of these red are non-conforming in one of the three ways one or more yes yes okay that's how we were trying to because they're all non-conforming in multiple ways and Justin if it if it helps um and I I feel like I end up quoting meatloaf way too often at these hearings but um uh the the ones to the left if if it is a lot area in almost every case that is all all three of the conditions that we're talking about with Frontage and area to the ones to the right um of our lot if if it if they do not if they meet area um it's the two variances though for width and Frontage so it's either two or three um if it's if it's area it's all three of the conditions if it's width it's also Frontage as well understood thank you yeah right so that when we try to color code based on number of variances it got completely rainbow so we just like okay better stick to one color uh so here uh we're going to go back to zoomed in version so um this is the subdivision plan hopefully I'm calling this correctly uh so here to the right of us is the existing lot and what would be these proposed lots are very similar in size U what exists in the neighborhood so these would be um larger than these red Lots and um approximately the same width but a little bit smaller than these guys on the right so the lot area that would be created is 9598 square ft while required is 10,890 and the proposed width and you see because it's a parallelogram so at the proposed WID um oh I think I got my numbers wrong actually the the frontage would be 6737 when 85 is required and lot width would be 61.5 because as it gets narrower where the building is is that where you measure the lot with hopefully I got that correct right and that's slide 15 yes okay um so uh oh yeah just to go back over here to mention that when when these guys get subdivided they would still be wider than these 60ft Lots right so here at the back is 121 feet so even at the very rear they will be wider than these guys right here okay did I hopefully said everything I'm supposed to on the slide um okay so this is the picture of the existing home um and this is that famous door that um If This Were to be converted to comply with the current Adu regulations having a door of the Adu face the front would not be conforming so this door would have to be eliminated and a door on the side or on the back would have to be created slide 16 slide 16 so what we were um starting to think about is if one wanted to um purchase this slot um and create one single family home that single family home could be 4,800 Square ft plus additional attics and basements it would be a very large home and it would really stand out in this neighborhood um so another configuration could be if somebody were and this would be as of right development it would require no variances um if for example an alternative solution would be if this home was replaced with a freestanding um single family home and accessory dwelling unit um these also would be very substantial it would be a 3,800 Square fet home and a 900 squ feet adus and they could also have various basements or attics in some configuration now Marina before you leave slide 18 which we were just on uh the there's gonna be a lot of discussion um about adus being in front or or lining up with with the neighboring properties here um the the ultimate plan we're going to show I think shows adus that are uh match the front yard setback of the neighboring homes which I think we're seeing here as well so why is it that this is compliant perhaps that that what we'll show later requires six VAR I have a whole slide to describe that it's really hard to explain this now but basically when the home is in front of the Adu if the Adu is set back um then this front yard issue wouldn't be triggered but it's really hard to explain in this view but we do have a slide where we can show exactly how that works out but thank you for bringing and the door would not be allowed to face the street obviously the door would face the side um so here to to go back to what we think um is slide 19 slide 19 is a configuration that we feel first of all when these two lots would be created they would be very much in scale with the other lots and in some cases even larger than the lots that are already existing in the neighborhood and then as we discussed um in our concept review and it seemed to have positive review at that point that we we thought that locating smaller homes in front would be preferred because that would be a better way to continue the current fabric of the neighborhood um and um I did have pictures of other homes in the neighborhood that are surrounded these are computer models but we do have pictures that are coming later so that talks about the size of the lot in relationship to other sizes of the Lots in the neighborhood so that's our orange bucket of lot related issues so now we're going to go to our blue bucket of things that have to do with the location of the adus uh so this is our site plan with a little bit of color coding and so this shows here would be the two individual Lots created and this would be 67 ft wide here while the other Lots on the street are 60 and then it would still be larger than 60 at the back but um uh 61 or something along those lines so um this here what we're hoping to show is again our understanding that this was a preferred configuration because this would match the neighborhood character with smaller buildings located in the front and when we came originally to the concept review we had the doors of the Adu face the side because that's what the ordinance said and we were actually advised to relocate the door to face the front and I will explain later why we thought that was a good suggestion but to orient everybody that would be Adu in the front and we feel that this is a good configuration because um the agu is a smaller home obviously and it would have a smaller yard and it would have kind of a small private space over here the front yard would be very much consistent with all the other homes on the Street and it would be large and open and green and have our sort of green infrastructure located there but it's not something that's private where you could you know do things that people want to do in their backyards so adus would have private yards tucked in kind of over here on the side and then the large homes well the larger homes of the two they're 1,800 Square fet so it's not really easy to call them too large um so they would be located towards the back and we felt that this was a better way to go because this allows us to use the garages that are allowed towards the back of the property to go with the larger homes so it makes sense so somebody would be um you know parking in their garage walking into their home and having a yard that's kind of private and talk to in the back so that was the logic um so this would be the configuration what we thought would work well here so it would be a shared driveway and people would kind of turn into to their respective homes and then they would have again so this is a good way to show so he would be kind of a L-shaped Adu that kind of creates a private patio a place for people to kind of hang out in a small space and a larger private yard in the back and then those are the two garages in the back and because they're built at the same time they could be attached to each other and could be on the property line so this is that confusing situation with the front yard setback that hopefully slide slide 23 hopefully would explain so if we look at the prevailing front yard setback this is calculated by the municipality and it's you know here's the front yard setback that is meant to comply so that all the homes in the neighborhood are approximately in the same location and maintain consistent relationship to the street which feels like a really good plan so we are fully compliant there no violation this is exactly what the measurement is however in the township definition the way that the definition is written hopefully understand this correctly uh and Derek will correct me if I don't understand this correctly is um there is this additional definition that the shortest distance between the building line and the front of the lot is how the front set back is defined so this would not be applicable in a burrow this is only a Township issue so to demonstrate this visually because the house is in the back this is considered the building line so therefore even though we're compliant with all the prevailing and we line up with all the other houses this creates the issue that the Adu is in violation right so hopefully we are understanding this correctly but again what we feel is we're really achieving what was meant with the prevailing setback by here's the prevailing setback we're not in violation of anything there we're maintaining a consistent relationship to the street um oh yeah here we go excuse me for interrupting um but so this does or does not trigger a setback variance well see this is that is that a that is that a Derek question or a Kennedy question I can give you my version I know dereck's version will be correct whereas mine will be um at least my my take on it but we yours will be yours yeah we have a we have a a setback variance in that the adus are in the front yard setback they're not supposed to be in that space from a numbers perspective we are uh you know that your traditional the building is too close or too far um we do not have an issue um you know as far as the prevailing setback and that number goes we do not have a variance for that the variance is just that this structure whether it's the primary or well in this case the accessory structure is in front of the primary building rather than a number situation but I didn't see that identified as a and maybe I missed it I didn't see it identified as a variance it is identified as a variance of locating the Adu in the front yard okay well I thought those were two separate issues although I understand they're completely joined at the hip Mr Mr Bridger do you want to opine uh yes Madam chair so Marine is correct the adus are not permitted in the front yard and the difference is in the burrow the front yard is the distance of the front yard setback so technically if the front yard setback was 30 feet and an ad was past the 30 foot setback it would comply with the burrow ordinance in the township the front yard is measured from the property line to the building line of the principal dwelling which is all they set at the back of the lot so this is a variance because the adus are located in the front yard and the ordinance doesn't per permit that so yeah so I think we're hopefully I diagrammed what Derek just explained so it's not that we're too close to the property line right so it's just the fact that in the because it's in front of the house nothing is allowed to be there got it okay right so Y what effectively by us staying in line with all the other homes and maintaining that consistent Frontage we have violated this situation so it it kind of hopefully this was diagrammatically clear enough but you know it's not easy to explain you know I think it's probably worthwhile uh Marina for the record just explaining what the prevailing front setback is uh I think maybe Dan Weissman would be a better person to explain how he calculates it but um in our ordinance um the town requires us to um calculate so we usually it's not just a number that is front set back is not a number like five right it's something that you need to contact the minity and they calculated for you and if so for example if the prevailing setback is 35 ft while the minimum required is 25 if the difference is more than 5 feet then the prevailing is applicable right I think it's five feet is that is that the average setback of the other buildings on the B yes it's an average of the homes in the surrounding vicinity what I don't remember is how far both ways it goes and then I don't really know because I contact Dan Weissman and Dan Weissman just does it Mr Weiss how how does Dan do it I don't know uh it the process is right uh the measurement is taken 500 ft in either direction of the property um the set backs uh are measured for each dwelling within 500 ft um including the the dwelling on the lot in question um and then the highest and lowest values uh from those setbacks are excluded from the calculation um essentially to take out any anomalies right but is it true to sort of the idea there is we don't want anomalies we want buildings on average to kind of maintain alignment with the street right that's kind of the goal of this it's an average calculation right right okay so hopefully we didn't confuse anybody completely over here no thank you go ahead okay so these are the homes on um looking to the right and looking to the left and um given the scale of these existing homes on the street we felt that it was appropriate to locate um the smaller structures and because they're following the prevailing setback that it would make sense for them to be kind of approximately in line in the same scale so as you could see okay yes now we're in slide 27 so see this garage right here is this garage right here so what we're trying to do is we're trying to continue that same relationship to the street in terms of um scale of the buildings and we feel that that's a better fit uh um so again what we would like to just confirm one more time that the homes themselves are not requiring any variances they're compliant the garages are compliant um and the reason again we felt that the larger homes would be better in the back because then they would go with the garages and they would have the more private yards which seemed more fitting with you know if somebody had a child who was playing in the yard that seemed like a logical place for them to be uh so oh yeah here's an example so that you could see so here would be um one of those rear yards where you know we expect to have large um Windows where smaller homes with larger Windows feel like they're open and inviting and have this indoor outdoor relationship and somebody would come out of their garage and you know go into their back door with their groceries so it seemed kind of a logical um thing to do and again everything's fully compliant to height and all of those things have been checked um and then this is an example of that little patio where the adus because they're smaller we felt like it was appropriate for them to have a smaller outdoor space um but still again we we tried really hard to create everybody to have privacy because we feel that we're able to create that but they don't get a garage they had a parking space uh let's see so going back to the whole question of the door facing the street so we feel that um our understanding of the ordinance is that the ordinance intent was to whatever is near the street has a door facing the street and that has a direct relationship to the street where from the street you could see where somebody's front door is and because in this case it's technically an Adu in front it it a little bit creates of a conflict that the Adu door is not supposed to be facing the front but I think the intent was hopefully that whatever is in front has a front door that's very clear and welcoming to the street and that we heard was the recommendation of the concept review however if you felt strongly that the door shouldn't face the street it's not the end of the world we could turn the door around and not have it face the street right we will still have a porch so right now we have a door facing the street but the door could face the side right we heard this as a positive so that's why we actually reoriented the the houses to have that um and then the problem with the door of the main house the main house door actually is facing the street but because there's something in front you can't see it um so it it is following the regulations but because it's in the back you can't see it so we feel that the current configuration actually follows the logic of what the neighborhood character ordinance says but the the exact configuration doesn't quite meet the letter of the law um and then we had a whole fourth bucket of things that were um related to like the windows were slightly off and the measurement of the height was slightly off so that's all gone this is slide 32 no need to worry about that anymore uh so uh I was going to pause right here that was a flood of information so I am happy to go back to any slides or hear any concerns or any thoughts or any questions ideas um um Miss Rina can can you go back to slide 31 I have one question um out of curiosity it seems um and I understand the front door faces the street but to me it still looks as if this is a side facade with with no windows and I and I'm just wondering if that you know and I obviously no architect so I'm I'd like for you to speak to you know whether this really does um address the stre read in a meaningful way um especially compared with other dwellings and I know these are architecturally distinctive from other dwellings so I'm not I think you're you're picking up on actually um something that is correct that we have since updated our drawings to have more windows facing the street and um that that issue has been in slightly outdated um slides from the previous version so we do have more windows facing the street and was that part of removing bucket three in other words the neighborhood character did require more windows facing the street uh bucket three I believe that had to do with the side actually I think um but I can I think if you give yeah since you're asking about questions related to architecture why don't you us whatever image later in the presentation shows the current proposed view from the street I believe we'll have to mark this as a separate exhibit um plans that were submitted but we didn't have a slide on this one yeah so I'm GNA pull up this view um so this would be a you know better view before you start if we could just I identify what we're looking at this was the plans the updated plans that were uh submitted Maybe by by date and then uh we could ask to have this marked this revision has actually been quite a while ago so this is um 830 23 um you could see right here so we were missing a window on the elevation um but this um this is the one that had a measurement height issue that was corrected um yeah so here we are this would be the front facade um we have the door we have a little um storage shed access over here your cursor is on the left is on the left image I'm sorry right correct correct yes right here right here yep yep so this is our um floor plan here where where do we go yes so here we are so you walk into the home um and we have a little bit of a bicycle storage right here at the front um furnace mechanical room things like that and then we have a bedroom here at the corner that um looks on one side towards the patio and on the other side towards the street and then we have kind of a bathroom tucked here in the middle and then we have a I don't know what we call it living dining room combined everything space again creating this um patio that we feel is kind of protected and tucked in there so um that that's the configuration so hopefully that explains that and then this is the elevation that goes with it but if again um there were suggestions or comments of you know how you would like to see this modified I don't see why we would be opposed to additional suggestions or recommendations Mar if I just might just from a technical perspective we're looking at the architectural plans that were for the home on the right side and maybe we could have that marked as A2 this evening just so we know what we're talking what we're looking at right uh correct and I think that in his letter um Dan identified that the lot on the right hand side would be 469 and this is um shown right here and the one on the left would be 471 so this one right here identified as 469 and and your testimony was that we we think that you know the comment was that that the The View on the the front elevation on the left perhaps could could use some additional front facing windows and generally you think that's if if that's the the feedback that that's something that could be accommodated in some way with the design if if everyone felt that was needed we can certainly work on that Mr Cohen and then Mr odonnell yeah I I just quickly took a look at the neighborhood character and there is a requirement that you need for a street facing wall a minimum of 10% fenestration I think you're a little short here I don't know if Derek did look at that in his review um so maybe he could he could respond but I certainly I thank chair Wilson for bringing this up and I would absolutely support having a more active facade facing the I don't see why not I think that in our um what would be super useful to figure out is whether the Adu should be in the front or Adu should be in the back if Adu should be in the front which way should the door face and then once we have that kind of solidified then we would be happy to tweak the design to um you know add more windows by I have never complained about having more understood Marina but at the same time I want to be super clear whether this is actually a variance condition currently or not or if it's just a discussion of Aesthetics so got it okay so I'm asking Derek to answer the question of whether he looked at the percent penetration on the street facing walls have to take another look at it David I think it might be a little short of the 10% okay thank you so so this might be addition if we didn't change it it might be additional relief that the applicant would need I'll I'll submit that um one we we didn't think about or or notice for that variant so I don't think we'd be asking for it our our our our um our offer to the board would be both to one to accommodate the very good comment that we received about you know visually and two that we would uh even if the the the board would not agree with the Mr Cohen and and the chairwoman about that and I frankly think you should um uh we would be certainly not asking for or you know we would be revising to add more windows just for to remove if there is a variance condition so I'll submit that right I think my understanding is and maybe this is why I thought it was compliant is that the front door is part of that calculation but maybe I'm wrong about that it is then between the fr front door and the windows I thought that it worked but maybe I'm mistaken uh Mr odonald did you did you have a question your hand went up and then it came down yes it did come down no my question is uh has been rendered moot okay Mr leco yes thank you madam chair uh Marina you mentioned earlier um that the intention was to match the neighborhood character with the smaller building in the front um are you aware of any other Parcels uh in the neighborhood that then have a larger building than that in the rear um well I guess across the street it is a little bit of a um where there are certain lots that go deeper that they do have structures in the back but they're not on the same lot so I think it kind of a different configuration um where the older homes are kind of closer to the street but the newer homes are set back but they're not in the same lot but the configuration of the lots are very different because they're kind of like in in in not parallel to the street but more perpendicular to the street regardless of whether they're on the same lot or not they're not directly behind though correct correct right and just to be completely clear we're not asking for any height variances in although the larger homes are in the back they're fully conforming to all of the all of the height regulations got it so there's no no relief of any height related issues at all so if they were swapped then there's no height variance there's no F variance nope it would essentially be by right for the structures correct right so our intent was we thought that we we presented this configuration and it was well received and we perceived that that was a preferred option and moved forward with this however if that that is not the case then the other configuration will be conforming because the buildings are conforming there's nothing about the buildings themselves that is like too high or too big or you know apart from confir confirming that we have the correct percentage of glazing which I think we did but maybe not um so if we don't have enough Windows we'll certainly be happy to add some more Marina perhaps if you could put your put the slide back and and remove the the uh A2 from the screen just so as as we finish up this part of the conversation we can look at either uh 19 so open the other PowerPoint okay hold on hold on and and while she's doing that to to to maybe phrase the excellent point that Mr leco just made there um the the way that we approached this and the feedback we got um again not binding but you know the the direction we were leaning towards um um and and different Visions can can arise over time was that the the front structures being the smaller of the Adu kind of matched the the setback and the height of some of the surrounding homes better than a a fuller two-story home would um but uh you know maybe another way of phrasing Mr Le's point is that a a traditional Adu behind a uh a single family home um structure I'm not going to use the word hides it but it it it's it um it's less visual um you know you you see the the second the single family home that maybe you're used to seeing on a street and and don't see much behind and you know that is been the the prevailing development pattern with adus so far um granted maybe not in this neighborhood where the homes are a little bit lower slung so those are the two kind of considerations that we had and both are quite valid um frankly and we we went with the one you know that we we we kind of pulled out of uh out of concept but again you don't want to be clear our our openness to to if if the board is both from a from an aesthetic or planning perspective just prefers that or is concerned with the number of variant is we are certainly open to to exploring that or or or revising to to flip you know uh as as Mr leco has kind of indicated there the the adus to the to the primary homes okay thank you other other questions for Marina Rubina from B I guess um yeah I guess um one consideration is that there are some homes on the street where although it's not a um trying to think of U Justin's question some of the homes on the street like across the street there's a smaller portion of the home itself that's at the front and then so for example like a one-story garage or a garage that has been converted to occupiable space like literally across the street and then the bulk of the home is set back further so if you want to show Slide three might actually show that that home if that's helpful slide three slide three right so here for example this guy right here where there's kind of a smaller um garage here's a garage and then the home itself is back so they're kind of attached to each other um that way um or here we go like for example this guy here there's a lower portion here and then there's a a larger addition towards the back so not the same but a little bit in that same general um configuration um see okay other other questions for Miss rabina okay thank you Marina um are we moving on now to Mr calik we we would be and and Marina after after we uh introduce Jim I'll ask you to to take back over the screen again but Jim if you could unmute and I know you've testified many times uh before this uh board and and Prince and Zoning Board but remind the board uh of your credentials as a well as a planner and as a civil engineer sure um James kamalak licensed professional engineer and professional planner in New Jersey um I've been practicing civil engineering and site planning for well over 20 years and have testified before this board on other applications uh in both regards um can you tell us just a a little bit more I know you've been before us many times but for the record um your education you're I think you said you're licensed in New Jersey that graduate degree from ruers the College of Engineering and have been practicing civil engineering and site planning for in excess of 20 years and your your licenses in both regards are uh um current in New Jersey yes they are thank you we accept your qualifications thank you um now uh and then Jim should I put up the slides would that be okay or do you share screen okay all right start back up again at slide 34 okay hold on hold on hope I don't miss while while that is happening I I'll suggest you know we we first heard the you know we oriented the board about the the core issues here in the design options um Jim is both a planner and a civil engineer I thought we' first talk about some of the technical site issues that were raised about the site and see um if the the board in professionals have questions or see if we can explain some of those things you know circulation and things like that first before we got into some of the the planning Concepts here so uh uh Mar I think one more slide 34 has a a site plan there we go and for the benefit of the public I just let people know that um there are are 18 excuse me 17 um people attending who um are observing and are not panelists at this time go ahead Mr calik thank you okay thank you everyone so as previously mentioned um here we're looking at slide number 34 which is the submitted site plan and as discussed we have um the main single family dwellings um towards in the rear uh half of the lot the orange structures that are highlighted here on slide 34 and then at the front um to the right of your screen in purple are the Adu units uh We've mentioned that we do have a um a shared driveway Arrangement going from the frontage on the right side of the screen uh back towards from Ying Street U Back through the lots to the single car garage at the rear um and there single story located at the rear of the lot uh for each of the single family dwelling units the site contains uh parking for a total of six parking stalls and you can see that um maybe Marina can highlight then we have one adjacent to the dwelling unit each of the dwelling units then a second one uh adjacent to the single family dwelling units and then we have an additional in each single car garage so a total of six um and that would provide you know basically one curb cut along this entire Frontage um that both Lots would share and that would be addressed via and access and um access easement as we did highlight on the proposed plan uh we do have utilities that are um entering the lot predominantly um at the top of the page as you can see on the south side and at the bottom of the page on the North side from Ewing Street to serve both the Adu and the single family dwelling unit and then um perhaps if we well I guess before we jump to to drainage you can see that we have highlight lighted on this plan the uh required setbacks uh minimum setback lines that we showing here 15 fet in the rear the sides and the prevailing setback at the front which uh Marina had previously testified and showed you at that color exhibit that the front prevailing setback is satisfied uh as calculated by the municipality so on the next slide I think we have slide 35 highlights the the overall context of their property with um some elements for addressing some of the um drainage on their property for the new structures and the driveway again as Mr Weissman mentioned um there is a significant amount of Paving uh on the property with with the existing driveway and the dwelling and some patios at the rear um and the net increase is a about 2,800 square feet of Imperia surface which we have sufficiently managed via uh two main mechanisms we have green infrastructure in the form of rain Gardens on right hand side of the plan which is in the front yard they would be landscaped uh green infrastructure storm water management facilities rather um you know shallow and planted um as the intent by the municipality for uh small projects like this this is a small drainage project um and that would sufficiently manage the um runoff in accordance with the municipality's requirements um which was confirmed by um the town review memos um and then we're also you know providing um contouring and Grading to ad adequately convey uh the water from the site uh away from adjacent structures and primarily towards um Ying Street and then maintaining the drainage patterns uh in the rear yard as well so as to not have any negative effect on adjacent properties so Jim uh just maybe to go through a couple of the staff comments while we have this up here so one one of them on the uh bioten Basin so would the applicant be willing to to work with staff to perhaps alter the the um the sizing of them um a bit to accommodate some of the the more technical comments that uh that staff had yeah we can take a look at that I mean I think we're open to seeing if we can make some adjustments perhaps to the plan view or the size of the rain Gardens in the front yard and the intent was to utilize that space number one but also we did want to preserve um the trees that we felt we would be able to or or work around them as opposed to and make our best effort to preserve trees mostly which are around the perimeter of the site we don't have we have one single tree that's by the um the new single family dwelling near the center of the site but everything else is is peripheral um large um mostly Norway spruce trees some Norway Maples Etc so we tried our best with tree protection minimizing grading and the depth of grading um in close proximity to those trees so we're certainly open to working with the arborus and if there's some um way that we can maybe shrink the plan view of those rain Gardens in the front or incorporate another element in the front um to comply with some of those comments you know we're open to doing that I think there was a suggestion in the rear to perhaps put a rain Garden at the rear corner um in the upper leftand portion of the slide uh and our thought was we that's a large tree back there yes the stair does come down I think within eight or nine feet of that tree um which would be you know sort of a you know framed out stair but we wanted to see if we could preserve that because of its size and we wanted to maintain the outdoor space if possible as opposed to taking the rear yard of a single family dwelling and making it a rain Garden so if kids want to go out and play or animals are out back and there's just basic activities we wanted to try to maintain that area and satisfy the storm water management component within the front yard which would be utilized less because of its proximity to the street um but you know we would certainly be open to seeing how we could modify that that front area U but that was our thought on the rear Mr Cohen yeah this is for Jim but also for Dan Weissman to uh respond to I fully appreciate the wish to save that tree and the uh I guess that's the southeast uh corner of the of the site um possibly you know needing to adjust the front rain Gardens is there a potential with pervious pavement and you know uh storm water uh management under the paved sections of the property to um to replace you know to to enhance the storm management without violating the you know the constraints that you were just talking about Jim yeah I think that that was one of the ideas that I would look to modify as part of you know coating with Dan if we were able to massage this a little bit um the possibility may exist to do that in the front uh where the adus are um but not so much in the rear I think the the adus do not have basements um so that would be more appropriate for perious pavement within that proximity to focus on that area but perhaps a conjunction of the two a portion of perious pavement with some underground storage connected to a Rain Garden um for conveyance Etc beyond that point we might be able to come up with a combination there that could work and I'd like to hear from Dan as well just to get a offthe cuff reaction absolutely no I agree uh I think any combination uh to help reduce the footprint of removing trees uh to build storm water management um it's a little counterproductive um what what looked evident from the site plan as a a quick fix to put in a basin at the rear is that there's a trench drain with uh a drainage line discharging um immediately to the rear towards that tree um so it it looked like a good opportunity to either maybe pull that back a little bit um but be happy to work with the applicant to to find other Alternatives thank you thanks for that Mr Taylor I'd like to discuss just for a moment again the issue of trees I see around the perimeter that there are a number of trees and I understand there are some very very large trees especially in the front from staff comments I recall there was a suggestion that while that's certainly ideal if possible to save some of those trees as many as possible that nonetheless there were risks there are risks that over time these trees may not make it could you help us understand the relationship between saving the trees preserving the trees these trees particularly in the front and what are the risks and the mitigant if any that they may not survive well I I think the driving force is to minimize the amount of disturbance in and around the tree in terms of the proximity and the distance of that disturbance so if we can um work on the footprint of the rain Gardens at least in the front that should help serve to increase that separation that's um number one and I think that's true we've tried to be sensitive to that throughout the site um a few of the trees in Taylor's memo several of them um mention trees that are um have disease associated with them or that are in Decay uh or that have a like a double uh stem that over the long Hall might not be advantageous uh to maintain on the site and he recommends removal so we would certainly defer to his judgment with respect to that um but there are several trees that have existing issues that he's recommending be removed and then he's also recommending Replacements um to make up for them so in my professional opinion you know I would think to address that concern if we have some aged trees yes they're grown in but if you take a larger tree down you're replacing it with at least one two or you know possibly more depending on its its diameter we can still provide those tree Replacements at a greater number um which will ultimately last far longer number one and we can create you know a more dense um vegetative condition around the structures because we're providing more trees on the site in terms of the overall number so um I think there's an upside to to a few of these tree Replacements that we would have to undertake um in terms of sort of you know having regenerating them with more trees and newer trees that will last longer and be effective um Mr Kik to Mr Taylor's point about the trees in front do you believe that you could build that Center driveway uh the you know the driveway connection to the street between those two very large um spruce trees I think those are those are Norway sprues I'm not sure right I believe that they are I think um you think that you think that that those trees could survive the creation of a driveway there even if it assuming that you would work with uh Mr Weissman and reduce the size of the um the rain Gardens there and find other ways to manage storm water well I think I guess I would say to answer your question the tree that's on the north side of the driveway that we were intending to preserve there's there are two of them there no on the uh on the South Side Up on the top yeah up yeah and then down and then down because the tree is not highlighted um that that may require removal that particular tree but the one further up on the page that does have the green circle around it I think that we would be able to save that again the driveway is um not extensively wide in this location um so additionally I think we have to take a look at you know that threshold of how much of the um the disturbance of the circumference of the tree would be required so here I think that tree that's closest to the driveway like we would have to be removed but the one on the further trees on either side I think that they would be able to stay um if and and again I defer to um Taylor the arborist and Mr dolber milsky on that but we'll we'll kind of work with them to to have the best um scenario possible with those trees yeah I I would like to hear from dander rilski too um Justin yes thank you madam chair I did just want to follow up on both those comments so uh Jim would you be able to kind of show us which of these trees shown now existing uh are most likely going to be uh you know are just not going to make it through construction based on uh the municipal arborus memo yeah I um I guess a few of these trees are are proposed let me clarify that um the two on top of the page that have the proposed tree symbol within them those are proposed and then we have two on the bottom of the page uh one there one to the back of the Adu um if we start at the back of the site behind the single family dwellings um I'd like to discuss that the the two trees there that Marine is highlighting the the one that's closest to the garage to the right that likely would have to be removed but I think that we can preserve the one that's behind that to the left um and that's something that I'll I'll further discuss with him um the one behind the single family dwelling that's at the bottom of the page just in that same vicinity there right there off the deck I think he was concerned about that tree as well um and that would likely have to be removed and then the trees at the front we had just talked about that how can we make adjustments for those larger Norway spruce I think one near the driveway that I just mentioned that's pretty close needs to be removed we would do what we can to maintain the others as possible um obviously if not provide a number of replacements there and then um near the center of the driveway we have an existing tree that we just tried to maintain if we could um and his thought there is because of the proximity of the driveway and the new structure that's not likely um going to be able to be maintained with that existing root base but you know I would propose that that would be a good location for a new replacement tree um on that corner and perhaps we can put one on the other side you know to create some symmetry there with with a a smaller ornamental tree um to provide some some shade trees in that area so I think there are a few trees in the memo that we should be able to work around with the arborist and try to maintain um but there would be several additional trees beyond the two trees on our plan that would require removal and then we would have to provide repl new Replacements thank you Mr D rilski do you have anything to add yes thank you m Sher uh Dan dilki landscape architect um been sworn in yeah Dan I don't think I don't think you've been sworn in if you can raise your do swear or affirm testimony about to give me the truth I doir yep so i' I've I've reviewed the the Taylor's memo as well as heard the testimony I think I appreciate the sentiment really do appreciate it but I think we're we have have to think about building these houses too that there there's going to be disturbance all over the site um and the trees out front the the Norway spruce um have very shallow root systems they're notorious for blowover um so you even if you save them there's a potential they're going to blow over and hit something I mean you're going to you're you're it really is very risky to do the level of construction you're proposing and try and keep those trees I think at best we would look at one of them one of the five out front pick the one that's the healthiest and try and see is there a way that we can minimize the disturbance around that tree and I think that's the best you could hope for um and that may involve some talk about whether we can shift the driveway slightly and the sewer lines there's little SS lines on that image they're sewer lines so you're cutting uh 3 or four feet deep to put those things in um so it's you're severing the roots completely um and it's you have to think in the winter this is a huge sale with folage that's if we have a high wind and that tree's roots have been compromised it's coming down um so uh for safety makes we really have to think that through and then when you get to the trees in the back the one that's furthest away is a Norway maple which is an invasive species and really not very desirable at all and then the the one that the the upper left of the image that one would be the one that I would Target say can we try and figure out a way to save that one um so realistically I think the one in the back corner you could think about it the picking one out front and see as there a way to save it and then the ones along the bottom the hedro along the bottom that I think is possible again though but look at all those utilities they're proposing they're bringing all the utilities in along that Corridor um and hoping that you can get all those Utilities in the same trench which is doubtful um it's it's it's very optimistic to think we're going to save much of anything when it comes to existing trees on this property with the level development that's taking place um and you're going to have vehicles all different trades out here you're going to have excavation it's going to be really difficult and and I think you really got to pick one or two trees and say these are the ones we're going to try and save and let's try and shift things away from those two trees and then um just come in with new trees that you know for everything else um thank you for that sobering um gut check um does your memo I'm sorry that I don't I even have it highlighted but can't find it what does your membo recommend a certain number of trees that you think would be appropriate after losing the ones you think are highly likely to be lost or would become Hazard trees if they were if their Roots were compromised you're on mute sorry I [Music] apologize for that yes so the I think it what I recommended was an on-site review with Taylor um Andor myself um and to see if we could really do an analysis of each of the trees that have the potential to be saved based upon what the board ultimately agrees upon is you know the most sensible configuration for everything and then then see how can we shift things a little bit here and there as as Mr chimac say adjust it to try and save them what options are out there and then that will then turn into what do you have to put back and I think Taylor's report provided very much detailed information if if this tree came down it would be two trees if this tree came down it' be three trees those type of things um and then we'd have to find you know locations that the trees could go back and fit and um a lot it's unfortunate a lot of times you're better off growing a new tree rather than trying to save a big old tree unfortunately when you get to this type of small lot with a lot going on um it's it's we used to try and save these trees and we learned hard that you you can't really it's just not realistic thank you and and I just want to add at the risk of being perceived as wrapping Knuckles or something that um it was really frustrating to read from Mr do rilski and from our arborist Mr Sapar um not only that the assumptions made about being able to save trees were completely unrealistic but also that there was mistake after mistake on the species of trees um and I would just um you know note for the record that um I I hope applicants in the future are a lot more careful and usually they are um because these are you know important features of these Lots whether they're old or new okay I'm done with that comment um any other questions for or are you finished with your uh perhaps on on that element there's a few other pieces I'd like to um Mr kamik to to hit on uh from a engineering perspective but if there's still other questions on this part of it we'll yield to that there's at least another question from Mr Cohen yeah it just it's really a followup from dance the ril's testimony about the utilities and I'm curious whether there is any potential to come with utilities you know under the driveway uh in the center rather than trying to push them out uh especially on that Northern side where where there there's that sort of row of grow of trees that might be endangered by that I guess that's a question for um for Jim we can take a look at that um we were trying to avoid we're going to have to have uh valves possibly meters near the street so to keep them out of the storm water management facilities we try to avoid that um but if there's a way that we can decrease some of that disturbance and migrate those to the center of the lot we'll take take a look at that okay thanks so it is h a little after 9: and I want to be um sensible about uh taking a break um Mr cilik do you have would you be wrapping up your testimony in five minutes or should we break now and then let you finish no I think so I think I just wanted to cover um we talked about the the parking and the the ESS um we did note that we have um parking stalls next to each of the dwellings and then additional parking uh in the back the width of the driveway at the rear is almost 23 feet um in with in order for those vehicles to back out of the garage um and and make their way uh towards Ying Street we also have opportunities for them um in several movements to to pull out forward um with the other pullouts if there's not a vehicle within those parking stalls um or with the way that they're depressed um if they prefer to pull out onto Ewing Street so we did take a look at you know turning templates and and things like that for increasing the erest from the lot since we do have parking spots in different areas of the site and and Jim similarly the idea you know these are two residential homes and two adus rather than kind of a multif family situation you um internal pedestrian circulation you know people would would essentially kind of use this as a as a path rather than creating some other kind of um sidewalk Network I guess yeah I mean we were really trying to minimize the amount of impervious coverage the amount of storm water management facilities on the lot um so we would anticipate that um similar to you know other houses that the the pavement access was would be used for pedestrian um use in and around the buildings and then one last question just and then um Madam chair we can we can either um break or if if the questions go longer be up up to you but just there was a note about um recycling in trash I know there's garages there's a kind of a little utility room in the front ideas about where um you know recycling buckets would be stored by these uh unit uh owners uh yeah perhaps we did discuss this with Marina the architect we have the garage and then for the adus we have um the anticipation would be it would be behind the Adu or on the side uh but not necessarily in the front Okay uh Mr Cohen and then Mr Weissman I think I want to let Dan go first because I think he may touch on what I'm gonna ask about but okay go ahead Dan thank you um I was just wondering if there was any consideration uh you identified that there's uh opportunity for vehicles that are parked in the garage uh to turn around in the parking spaces um but people are going to be living in these homes and those spaces will likely be occupied a significant portion of time so vehicles that are parked in the garage uh to exit the site would have to do so in a full reversing movement um from the furthest end of the site all the way up to Ying Street uh so I was wondering if there's any consideration to provide maybe a small additional turning area um for those cars exiting that the garages um to exit in a forward- facing movement um I guess I would say that we can take a look at possibly um extending near the garage extending the width um you know we we're trying to maintain Green Space in and around these structures here but we do have um an aisle at least where the garage is that's almost 20 23 feet wide so our thought was if there was a desire to pull to pull forward and pull out um that somebody still could make a multi- um turning movement and get themselves turned around in front of the garage before they pulled out and we may be able to just widen the driveway slightly in that area to facilitate that um but the the parking stalls for the individual units that are on the periphery the the two pair in between the dwellings they are where the vehicles are parked they are set back a bit away from the main driveway which does give some additional area so that's what I was speaking to um especially near the front there's some some more area but um a person would like a typical residential uh single family dwelling be able to to back up down the driveway way and you know back back out of a driveway like for a single family dwelling um but we were trying to keep the impervious surface as as low as we could with these additional pullout areas Jim just so I understand that you know in in the situation where there's any one of those spots is unoccupied there would be a full kind of hammerhead opportunity and then I think I heard you say that even if they were all occupied there is U some amount of width there that would allow a multi multi um a movement that could allow you to turn around um um and and and and face out into uing without backing all the way it yeah it would have to be it would have to be a multi-turn multi-turn movement but that would only be necessary if all four of those spaces were fully used yeah I guess that's number one and then obviously we're talking about two of the six spaces here down at the end right the other four have complete unobstructed egress access to pull forward and out understandable uh it I think if there was a chance to look at potentionally widening the short bottleneck area uh at that 22t width in front of the garages um I think that would provide a much easier way rather than a multi-point turn okay a little more direct access to to turn around Mr Cohen yeah so so I want to um make some related comments first of all I think the circle um that's at the crossroads if you will of that driveway you know is kind of a nice design feature but it's really quite confusing because I think Vehicles would have to be driving half on and half off the special pavement and I think it would be good to sort of redesign that to clarify you were either all on it or all off of it um I think you know if it were enlarged a little and you know you know that the that the movements that were concerned about could take place entirely within that Circle um you know that somebody backing out of the garage could back to the circle and the rear end would go one way and then they could just go out the other you know go forward out the other way um but then I I just I just wanted to point out just to be clear um it's not a landscape Center Island no I I get that I get that but I it's still it's still it's sending a confusing message understand to to people of whether they're supposed to be driving on it or off it because essentially they have to drive half on and half off right the way it's configured right now I I also I you know if that tree is going to go um which there seems to be yeah that one some consensus that that's going to be extremely difficult to save that gives you some more flexibility of what you're going to do in this area um but I also want to make the point you know I did go back and check the drawing and the impervious coverage limit on this site is 49.5% I think and the actual impervious coverage on each site is 49.5% you are right at your impervious limit and I'm concerned that that is driving some of these decisions in ways that are not advantageous both this question of vehicular movements and also the question of pedestrian um circulation you know single family homes have driveways but they still have walkways you know to get to get their doors and I think that that it's ungracious here to Simply suggest that people have to walk on the driveway and I think part of the reason the hidden reason for that is that you would be over your impervious limit if you um if you provided that and so I'm not saying I know what the answer is but I wanted to flag that um for the board to understand that that's part of I think what's what's driving the design decisions here and but just to just to clarify that for you David um I think if you look at the cover sheet you might have seen in the table it says less than 49.5 but the actual impervious coverage we are a few percent less okay I thought and that so we can take a look at that and see if there's opportunities here to widen the driveway for egress but I think we're 44 and change 44 for one and 43 and change for the other so we're there is a little buffer in there okay I I guess yeah I guess I was looking at the table and didn't zooming enough but um yeah I think you know I think staff's comments here right right on target both about The Pedestrian circulation and about the automobile movements and I would like to see those solved uh um not not a shrug yeah yeah yeah Mr Bridger Derek his hand went down okay um this may be heresy but if the if there were no garage structure would that give you more flexibility Oh Derek you're back with your hand up I don't want to jump in in front of you but I'm just throwing that out there that if if not having a garage would provide for more flexibility with regard to parking and turning movements um if you could uh you know do more with that space than two parking spaces that's my question and I guess it's I mean I don't know whether anybody has any insight to share right this very minute but um and I know it's impervious cover either way assuming it's the same amount of [Music] um space [Music] um but it would mean uh a structure not quite so close to the rear lot line in the rear neighbors and I I thought could potentially um provide for more flexibility for turning movements do do you Mr Cohen or Mr Camille have any thoughts about that you can say no that does not make sense Louise I will take no offense I think I think the the idea is a good one I'm just looking at it trying to see what we could do back there because um again you have a parking space and then you have egress from it um and you want to have them on the separate lots and we're we're at a you know the way everything is organized laterally uh it's a bit of a challenge yeah okay and I I would say you know if the parking for the cars that would have been in the garage was not where the garage is but in front of where the garage is you could have a significant reduction in impervious service and if we solve the the design of that Circle you could still you know you could you could have plenty of room to get out right so I think that I think it's worth throwing into the hopper as part of the problem solving okay we'll take a look at it um Derek Bridger yeah thank you I just wanted to Circle back to the fenestration question I checked my numbers and um the the two doors and the window do comply with the 10% um on the front facade of the Adu so thanks for checking Derek thank you for bringing it up David okay um I don't see any other board hands up for for questions of expert Witnesses right now so why don't we it's 9:16 why don't we um take a break reconvene at 9:25 sharp and um we'll take any any remaining questions um from board members and then open up for public comment after that okay see you at 9:25 thanks from board members there are any remaining board uh board member questions you could raise your hand now um for now that is of course we can come back ask more questions and deliberate um based in part on what we hear in public comments so I will open the meeting now for public comment if you're a member of the public and we have uh still 17 people in attendance and I'm seeing hands go up um now is the time to raise your hand and we will call on people in the order in which hands were raised [Music] um Carrie can you bring over our first two the first hand up that I can see is a 609 phone number ending in 8972 um and the second individual is Michael Bell if you could bring them over um so for the um member the public who's calling in from the phone 8972 um if you have a camera that you can activate um please do so and if you don't then um there's my video oh there you go thank you yep um you can uh let Mr um MERS where are you in okay and all the members of the public if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give me the truth yes I do so swor or affirm please State your full name and spell your last name Claire Baxter B ax T R thank you go right ahead CL I I live at 455 Ewing so if you're looking at the house it's not the next one on the right but the the second one and uh my big thing is the drainage I have um if you look at the street it goes downhill and it ends up in my yard and the one thing I know there are a lot of Springs in the area and it's been more and more when they built about a year and a half ago they built a two houses above that house and because it's disturbing the springs and the water is in my yard and in the back of my yard that's what I'm really concerned about it's like a river um the water is unbelievable the drainage problem I have in my yard and it's gotten only worse since they built those houses and the other part of it in the front of the house I get a tremendous amount of um at the edge of my driveway all of a sudden now after after any rain there's water draining down the street and I've noticed in the middle of the street there's a crack and there's more water coming out of there so I'm very concerned about the drainage and what that's going to happen to myaps and I also think there's an awful lot going on those two lots there's just it seems like there's no space for anything but um that's what I have that's what I uh my concern is the drain Ag and how it'll okay yes thank you and uh after we hear from other members of the public we will ask um the applicant and our professionals to speak to the drainage um before and after the proposed uh um development of these sites additional dwellings thank you and thank you very much for not using your whole three minutes gotta State my point yes thank you I wish everyone would do that um um Mr Mueller our next um speaker is U Michael Bell or maybe uh well you can introduce yourself I'm not sure whether I whether the name on the screen is is who will speak or not um but Mr Muller needs to swear you in it's Michael and my wife Jane mccardy I'm Jane mcari right we'll be someone in are you both going to testify okay um do you both swear orir a testimony about to give will be the truth yes we do yes okay you so sworn each of you please take your full name and spell your last name okay my name is Michael Bell b l l and we live at 103 Kyler road which is on the corner with Ying Street the others uh the way western side of Ewing Street you are and I'm Jane mccardy my last name is mccardy MC c a r t okay same address right ahead yeah well it was only five months ago in November 2023 that during lengthy discussion of our new master plan for Princeton members of this board said that residents voicing concerns of the likelihood of increased density were overreacting and reassured us that the plan would not result uh in overdevelopment uh until appropriate zoning regulations had been developed to quote one member as reported by Planet Princeton the proposed master plan is not going to open the floodgates to a complete Redevelopment of the town or the complete tear down of every building in order to build four unit buildings per acre instead what we have here is four buildings on 044 ACR and he said I think people should calm down a little bit about that if this proposal is approved by this board those reassurances will be rendered Hollow the floodgates will be open and the flood will engulf Ying Street the greater impervious coverage created by this subdivision of an existing lot is a really serious concern the existing lot is subject to a limitation on impervious coverage of 36% which would be 6,9 111 Square ft by creating two non-conforming undersized Lots the permitted impervious coverage can be up to 49.5% examining the applicant's plans as submitted the impervious coverage is proposed to be 8,987 square ft adding up what was on their plan which is an increase of more than 2,000 square ft beyond what is now allowable this is slight of hand and it should not be permitted I've heard the zoning board previously reject applicants requests for variances on the grounds that the property in question was already a subdivided lot and the original rules should therefore apply if Princeton is serious about the preservation of open space and storm waterer management the rules applying to the existing single lot should be applied the construction will almost certainly Denude the lot of its existing trees as we heard including that row of Norway spruce along Ewing Street which is a defining feature of the existing Street skate any street parking by residents of the development or their guests or Services you uh being brought to the houses will impede the flow of traffic along Ewing Street which has only a 50-ft rideway delivery Municipal service or emergency vehicles already cannot pass oncoming traffic when vehicles are parked on either side of viewing concerning the desirability ility of creating a walkable neighborhood the board might note that there is no sidewalk on that side of Ewing Street and that when the sidewalk on the west side does reach to hun Road there is no sidewalk at all on either side of to hun Road in either direction Jane okay excuse me um Miss mccardy uh Ian since we have a second individual um and I did give you a little extra time Mr Bell because we Aid in into your time a little bit after the um timer started um Mr Henderson if you would start the timer again um so that Jane mccardy can have her three minutes too okay thank you thank you um I'm concerned about the number of Varan variances that are being requested for this development this project in particular I think the accessory structure devel accessory dwelling unit being put into the front yard is wrong uh the the rules say that no accessory building or structure should be located in any front yard and the placement of the adus in the front of the main houses requires variance the this is going to set a precedent the lot next door would be cap could apply for the same thing that you could expect this to happen all over town what what's to prevent any homeowner from putting another house an Adu in their front yard if you CH make this change it sets a bad precedent I think the project will start with a mostly cleared lot especially if more of the trees cannot be saved and except for working around the trees to be preserved they should be able to develop the property with a minimum of variances and in fact at the concept plan review the documents the owners sent in said apart from the variances needed for the subdivision of the lot we do not foresee the need for other variances here they are asking for all sorts of other variances the table parameters has listed the setback from the road um the me minimum prevailing front yard setback as 70 is 37 ft and I think again another slight of hand is being done if you say oh you're going to measure the distance to not to the first building you come to but to the main dwelling which is further back it should if you're going to measure that do that measurement it should be to the first building building you come to in this case the accessory dwelling unit we're concerned about the changes to the neighborhood character we bought our house nearly eight years ago because we like the neighborhood and although it has changed some which we expected this sub subdivision development will put four houses where there previously only been one and that will create increased traffic more parking on Ying Street and an increased density in the H houses and I think it'll set a bad precedent which others will follow thank you thank you thank you Miss mccardy um our next and again we'll we will speak to some of the questions that you've raised after we hear the rest of um public comment um who is next up Miss Phillip that would be uh Michael I'm sorry I thought I moved somebody over already K did yeah k1x sorry and then Michael Floyd okay hi it's uh Katarina tonight if you could ra if you could raise your right hand do you swear or from testimony about to give be the truth uh sure yes just want to affirm please say your full name spell your last name Kina tanik t n e y c k thank you hi right ahead okay so unfortunately I um as some of the other neighbors do not support the idea I understand the applicants want to take advantage of the Ada um Adu Rule and buil four houses instead of two uh which this is exactly what's happening it's four separate dwelling units um the reason why I don't support it is because I feel like it looks like a condo development it doesn't have the look of a single family home it looks like four separate houses something like a you know a town townhouse community and this is not what this neighborhood is about and I feel like um the applicant is comparing uh their lot which is oversized to existing lots that are undersized but they don't see that the homes are smaller because back in the day we didn't need larger homes we were fine with smaller homes so now what they're doing they want uh The Best of Both Worlds they want a small lot and then they maximize everything everything's absolutely maxed out there's a lot going on there will be small patios knock back no backyard literally no grass um yeah I just feel like it's not a good fit and I understand we have this Adu uh rule but it doesn't seem like a good fit for this neighborhood and then at the same time the neighbor next to them that has an oversized lot they will probably do the same thing so then we will have eight homes and then maybe 12 so this will slowly become a very very dense street so um unfortunately do not love it and then if they um I have another minute if um you know the board does decide to to Grant the subdivision for the two Lots at least I think that the applicant should um reverse the Adu and um the main house just so we see the main house and then the Adu in the back because essentially that's what the accessible dwelling unit is it's the small apartment or a smaller home in the back of the property so we see the main house in the front and then the Adu in the back thank you thank you okay we have Michael Floyd and then Felicia spits Michael if you could raise your right hand are you here oh and you we just need to activate activate your your camera Mr Floyd why is it it's not activating start video now can you see yes you could raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony about to give me the truth yes I do for orir please tell your full name spell your last name Michael Floyd f l y d thank you um I had a couple comments um this is all very interesting and we're all learning some new things as we go along all the time um my concerns are about precedent and Neighborhood Impact I am glad that the last two speakers uh did touch on a point that I hadn't heard discuss which is that adjacent lot to the north is the exact same size and essentially a parallelogram too and does seem you know um right for redevelopment in the same way um but that may be in the future it may not be um so that's related to President also putting the Adu in the front and the large wi in the back I'm just not sure about it normally we look at you know air and open space and preservation and we kind of look at it or I kind of look at it as uh usually the rear yard and not cutting into that now whether you put the larger building in the front or the back um they're still the same size the adus is same size of the Adu so um it won't have an impact that way but it will impact the rear yards lastly I just noted um in the staff memo which I think was also consistent with something David Cohen said today is you have some powers to negotiate um we'll see where this goes um I know the town planner mentioned that in his recommendations that planning board members could or should ask basically the applicant why they're going to the maximum permitted in some areas I believe that's in his memo um and I haven't heard anybody as that or um maybe the um maximum permitted doesn't have to be the minimum that they asked for and they could ask for a little bit less whether be a height F thank you thank you thank you Mr Floyd okay the next person is Felicia Spitz and then um Dale me okay Felicia if you could raise your right hand um the host stopped my video so oh there we go if you can raise your right hand yeah you swear airm testimony about to give be the truth I do s one and again you name name Felicia Spitz spit yes thank you um I wanted to um applaud the um IOD Deli family for this really creative um and Innovative um solution um we hear a lot of talk about the missing middle housing and um you're providing at least two um with this plan to our town um which I personally am grateful for because there isn't a lot of inventory um I I've heard a lot about the Adu in the front yard and it strikes me um as ironic because if you're walking by on the street having the smaller unit in the front would make the whole project seem more in in line with the scale of the existing structures so personally I think it's kind of silly that there's some thought thought that an Adu can only be in the back I mean it actually visually seems like it would be much more appealing and fit better in the neighborhood to have the smaller structure in the front because that's what would catch your eye and I don't know that you'd see the larger structure behind it from a from a street view um so I if you know that that's up for discussion tonight I would encourage members of the board to really think about um what helps this type of cottage structure work within an neighborhood that's comprised of smaller homes um the other thing I want to address uh are the trees because I heard something different maybe than what other people heard and that was that some of the existing trees while they are larger they are diseased and invasive species so I know we all get very upset about losing trees here but I'd also like to point out this is a great opportunity to introduce non-invasive species trees that are healthy and that aren't going to create problems with you know Emerald Ash beetles or whatever other blights are going around town these days um so in support of missing middle housing um replacing some invasive trees with better ones um and really looking at this from what what stays in the kind of size and scale of the neighborhood with the adus and the front yard I think this is an amazing solution and the fact that a family is doing this and not a developer um I just think it's it's a it's a tremendous um Creative Vision and I I hope that you um consider it in in that context thank you thank you hi Mr me um Jerry can you swear in Dale me please if you could raise your right hand Dale you here he is uh you did um turn your uh mute back on Mr me it you were unmuted for just a split second there you go okay there I am do you swear firm the testimony about to give me the truth I do just want to affirm please tell your phone name spell your last name Dale ma m d and I would like to make a few comments about some of the slides shown at the beginning of the presentation in particular the U uh plot uh showing uh various Lots some of a minimum size uh compared to the present proposed uh re subdivision and on that plot uh many of the um Lots did have indeed non-conforming characteristics but I believe nearly all of them were that way as of the time zoning was introduced so none were made non-conforming by a subdivision process and um it's been argued that because they were the same size and so on and had non-conformance issues that the existing proposal of subdividing 469 uing to create these two non-conforming lots would themselves be uh consistent with the neighborhood character but I believe also if you look at those lots on that figure and all the Lots within the 200 foot radius of 469 euwing I don't believe any have adus so this is the Crux of the problem here the claim is that there's no substantive change to the neighborhood character whereas in fact you're doubling the size of the occupancy allowed on this U neighborhood by allowing um both of the two subdivided non-conforming lots to have both a main house and a um Adu and in the process still uh struggling like um to make uh ends meet by requiring all these variances to be made I'm also recalling the statements made during the last few uh um minutes of the um various planning board meetings on the master plan and that was that relax nothing is going to happen it's going to take a while going to be a long time before the council in um enacts ordinances to uh affect this red denif or the densification of the residential neighborhoods and now um it's looks like this is a process in place at the moment that is going to end run the council's authority and it uh really sounds an awful lot like the uh the Humbert case that you're walking down the same path and haven't gotten the message yet from Judge Lowry so that those are my comments and uh again I think this is trying to put 40 pounds in a 20 pound bag it just doesn't work thank you thank you Mr me um I think I saw you brought over Joe Butler that is correct great so um Mr Mueller can you swear in Miss Butler yes Joe can raise your right hand got it you swear or affirm testimony about to give be the truth I do name record and spell your that's name Joe Butler b ler I guess I'm going to piggyback on Dale's comment a little bit um you know Princeton is blessed with a lot of non-conforming lots um but why the planning board would want to create more non-conforming Lots I think is a bad precedent that it just while the architect was able to show a lot of um properties in that neighborhood that aren't that are smaller or this would be about the same size there are also a lot of properties in that neighborhood that aren't and I think that um the more often you create non-conforming Lots the harder it makes when the next applicant comes in to say um to deny them the opportunity to also create more non-conforming lots and then we might as well just be zoning lot by lot um a comment about having the adus in front having that parking spot right in front I think is pretty unattractive If eventually you ever have sidewalks and you do have people walking around or just driving down the street um it starts to look like just parking lots they're not allowed in the former burre um not that this is the former BRS the township um but my real question Justin if you're still on here um is about in your um memo item G you said that um the traffic would increased by 20 cars and I'm wondering if you can explain that a little bit are you going from two drivers to six drivers so there are four additional drivers five trips a day so 20 and when you say that it's not a big deal if everybody on the street did it when does it become impactful I guess that's my question that's it thank you Miss Butler um so before we address that question I just want to um invite anybody else who wishes to speak uh to raise your hand okay I see Paul walberg's hand go up anybody else this is last call uh if you want to speak um okay so we'll bring over Mr wallberg and um after that we'll close public comment Mr Walberg will you um thank you unmute yourself and activate your camera here Step Ahead thank you H go ahead Mr meller you can raise your right hand sure you swear the testimony about to give be the truth I do so want to affirm please tell your full name and spell your last name uh my name is Paul Bendix Walberg p a u l b n d i KS w a l b r g thank you right ahead okay so um apologize for reading I'm trying to stand under the time limit um I'm very I've been very concerned about all of this because this is taking place about approximately 240 ft away from me um I live at 393 Walnut lanee um I and others are OPP post to splitting this property into two non-conforming units and that really is the focus here I repeat it's splitting the property not all the other variances that is the issue we're opposed because splitting the property into New non-conforming Lots is against regulations and it allows building four houses where they're originally won that is the basic issue you're trying to squeeze four families into a reasonably sized lot consistent with all the Lots on my street where was was originally only one in last year's meeting I hate to I hate to be bringing this up again but the board controversially approved the first master plan and I heard the same thing that others did that we weren't going to be seeing this at least for a while until it could be considered later on calm down is that really true because as everyone said if you approve this subdivision and again I'm talking about the subdivision not the variances the fundamental issue if you're doing this you are de facto changing zoning regulations through the back door and without the attention of the wider Princeton community in considering variance requests I believe the planning board has a responsibility to serve the interests of the neighborhoods that will be affected not their own personal interests and beliefs regarding how development should be pursued or those of developers Realtors or other professionals to stem to benefit monetarily or professionally from the subdivision and all the subdivisions that will surely follow one street over we have many properties that are over 044 Acres so they're all presumably now available to including mine which is 049 Acres I have another Point related to the effect of this development on the environment I have a master's degree in Environmental Conservation from Yale a PhD in a collegey evolutionary biology from Ruckers I worked with reputable National and international environmental organizations over my career and with all due respect increasing density from one family to four and putting four units in to accommodate that as presented in this proposal is going to damage the environment in pron in Princeton and it is not hard to prove this any suggestion that aggressive development proposals such as this one increasing families from 1 to four in the same Halfacre space suggesting they are in any way environmental benefiting the environment is misleading at best and dishonest at worst trees will suffer imperal surfaces will increase that will increase runoff it will reduce the recharge of aaers the neighbors will see ponds developing in their yard but even more water will be rushing down the streets and into the into the sewer lines and brushed out to the ocean any pre-existing natural habitat will decline just look at the two massive new environments developments that have been set up not only around the shopping center but also nearby and you see that all the trees disappear this development and others like it are undoubtedly being that are undoubtedly being planned will be highly detrimental to the environment of Princeton the law May Grant planning boards the ability to approve aggressive development not in accordance with zoning regulations out of character with the rest of homes in the neighborhood and in opposition to the express request of the residents but I don't know really if it really does but if it does I believe believe it shouldn't I doubt I doubt using it power you've used your the Mandate the voters of Princeton intended to give you guys when they voted for the mo mayors that appointed you and I didn't ask for it thank you very much okay um so with that we will close public comment um there are several questions raised that um I think should be addressed um Claire Baxter raised a question about drainage and so I U Mr Cohen do you have a comment or question first you're on mute not first I just I do have a response to one of the one of the commenters um but you can go ahead and ask Dan or whoever to address the drainage thing first yeah if Mr C and um Mr Weissman could speak to um impervious cover and drainage on the property um as it exists Now versus um sure yeah what it's engineered to manage in the way of storm water David yeah and actually I I realized that what I wanted to say is gonna feed into this which is I thought that Michael Bell's comment that only by being non-conforming do these lots have the 49% impervious limit if they were actually conforming in the zone at 0.25 Acres they would have a 36% impervious coverage limit and I think you know we already discussed the fact that F we shouldn't be giving an F bonus because we're giving a variance and I think Michael point was a really good one that maybe we shouldn't be considering giving uh an impervious coverage um break on the basis of of the of the substandard uh Lots so you know Jim and Ryan if you want to talk about that in the same bucket of talking about impervious coverage and training sure I I guess the two points that I wanted to make is one obviously uh whether this project move for moves forward or or doesn't move forward um any any existing off-site drainage issues on other properties you know obviously that's that's a pre-existing condition that um this project doesn't necessarily affect um as it's as it's currently happening now but I what I would add to it is to say that um we are managing all of the increase and runoff from the property number one in accordance with the municipal requirements and the standards and number two we are conveying um areas on the property uh especially along the frontage and and managing water that previously did drain onto the adjacent property we put a cut off Swale on the downhill side in order to help to convey that water that ultimately drained across the front yard um onto our property and then down on the um this on the north side of the property as well so there will be some improvements there with the rain Gardens and the bio retention areas that we have in the front yard um thank you for that Dan do you have anything to add uh I just if you'd like me to speak to the ordinance and what the requirements are just just for public knowledge um so the municipality uh has uh stricter limits as it relates to storm water management on sites um than the D does uh the D sets limit at limits at one acre of land disturbance and a quarter acre of impervious coverage creation uh the municipality has low lower those limits to a half acre and 5,000 sare ft additionally uh the municipality uh requires on-site storm water management for what are considered small projects such as these which increase impervious coverage on sites uh by 400 square feet or greater those projects are required to uh account for storm water management in that they retain uh what's the equivalent of the water quality design storm 1.25 Ines of rain um and they are also required to manage uh onsite through that same storm water management uh the two-year storm uh which is 3.3 inches of rain um over what time period the one hour two hours the water quality design storm is is on what would be a major project would be uh two-hour storm um the two-year storm would be a a 24-hour storm um but the small project limitation doesn't get into the time frame limits it it just sets it for the total rainfall amount okay so so that retention amount is regardless of of time frame of when it falls um and each storm water management system has to be designed uh per the New Jersey uh dp's best managed practices manual BMP manual um and there's a a restriction as to the um which storm water management measures can can be used Madam chair could I ask a question of of Derek and and Dan yeah yes can you explain if it's true why the impervious cover percentage is so much higher for non-conforming Lots than conforming Lots it does not relate to conforming or non-conforming the impervious coverage limit is dictated based off of the size of the lot um so the the range from I think it's 0.1 acres to 0249 acres is is uh 49.5% and then from 0.25 acres to essentially 0.5 Acres uh is that 36% okay thank you Dan anything to add to that Mr Bridger no leave it to the engineer um Dan I don't want to put words in your mouth but is it accurate to say that the storm water management and I understand what people have said about the intensity of what's proposed um and and in fact um they're correct in pointing out that or one or two people that um are professionals raised this question um in their memos um um but given that or you know even given that is it accurate to say that that it's likely that there's less storm water running off of the site um after what's proposed than there is now or is that not a safe assumption uh I it it it would depend on the contributory area that's fed to each storm water management measure um it it at a minimum it would have to remain the same um the contributory area to each storm water management measure would have to treat at least the minimum of what the the new impervious surfaces so if it's 2,800 square feet of new impervious then 2800 square feet has to be treated okay Mr Cohen I see you yeah leaning forward and thus I I'm leaning in I'm not leaning forward I'm leaning in leaning in okay so I I want to make a couple points about this first of all um If This Were a vacant lot and this were new construction you know it would be all of the impervious coverage would need to be managed and the fact is that the existing imper cover coverage is not is not managed currently you know I've been trying to reach a point where we can actually regulate both new and redeveloped impervious coverage because you know I think like an architect um if you tear down a house and you build a new one you're not allowed to build the new one not up to code right just because the old house wasn't up to code doesn't mean that you can build a new one that's not up to code and here we're saying tear down all the impervious coverage that's there now and build it all new but you don't have to manage half of it because it didn't used to be managed to me that doesn't really make sense and I think that there's an opportunity here to sort of say look you know you're you're asking for all these variances and we can talk about that later you know the different variances and how they should be treated but at the at the least I sort of feel like one of the things I would like to negotiate with the applicant if it's possible is to say you know really especially in a neighborhood like this that is having trouble with storms and and water uh flooding neighborhood you know flooding the neighborhood that we should be setting a higher bar than just what our ordinance calls for if we can so that's the that's the comment I wanted to make and that that actually takes has two different pieces to it one is to say manage all the impervious coverage not just the new impervious coverage but it also comes into question as to whether then it becomes a large project which has more stringent management requirements than just managing the um the two-year storm or the water quality storm and so so it could be that we're if we ask this we we're asking them to manage more impervious and we're asking them to manage at a higher um uh sort of a higher performance uh standard and I would like to put that out there as something that would be reasonable under the C circumstances and I don't know if it's it it may be reasonable but not realistic but I'd like for somebody to respond to whether it's realistic because I think it is reasonable and if it's realistic with um smaller dwellings well when I say realistic I mean do you have enough space on the site to manage all the to manage all that storm water at this High um high performance level Mr CA can you speak to that well I don't know that I'm in a position to speak to specifics about quantifying how much additional water can be stored but I would just say that the area the additional areas are limited on this site um as you can see with the rain garden areas in the front where we have those existing Footprints plus the remaining yard areas on the property so we're not in a position where we have expansive backyards and you know um additional space uh at our discretion in order to just to to increase these substantially so um I wish I could give you an answer on that and even quantify well how much more could you do but I just would say that you know the available area is limit number one uh and number two we are dealing with existing conditions of the topography because the site is somewhat sloping north to south so that does also play into um where the available Pockets that I can put manage the water and then how do we get it to that location uh because of the topography so there are some some engineering you know constraints here which which have a limitation on how much more we could do um I'd like to give points that were I'm sorry to interrupt please continue no I just wanted to say it'd be nice that I could give you some sort of you know Quantified additional amount um it's something that we can look at but you know in terms of the overall footprint that we're dealing with and available areas I do think we can look at the front portion of the driveway and the two parking areas in terms of uh capacity with perious pavement um and that could increase our volumetric storage beyond that that we have currently so I think that that's reasonable um to say to sort of up the bar Beyond what's on the plan um but I just don't want to overpromise and underd deliver because of the constraints that we're dealing with here and we're trying to make room around the trees and and kind of find find some more space Etc so well pervious pavement was where I was going so I'm glad you went there too uh Mr Weissman uh the constraints uh towards the front of the site versus the rear of the site is that because of the basements in the main dwellings at the rear in terms of the pervious pavement yeah that's that that's a concern um and that's why we would be focused near in and around the adus and the front entry Drive D so that we have some separation with that okay Mr bimer yeah I mean I just wanted to I guess first off I'm very sympathetic to the to to the points that um Mr Cohen was making uh about the need to uh address runoff and about what you compare uh this project to and compare ing it to what you could do as of right or what you'd have to do and what performance stand you have as of right makes sense to me um and I also think that you know we should just continue to keep that comparison of this Pro you know this proposal to what could be done as a right particularly with regard to the this notion of of changing the character of the community I mean I I I I you can't tell me that leaving the exist that that that the development the project that I see on Grover when I walk to the shopping center from my home in the in the Littlebrook neighborhood or when I go visit friends on Harris I mean throughout the town the changes that have been made fundamentally change the character of the neighborhoods that's that's that's what will happen that that that's that's that's the base case that's that's where you have to compare everything to um and you know the question is whether it's better to have that or better to have uh a Redevelopment project that I think as as the public commentary Miss pitz argued was you know contributed to a town that is more economically diverse than what the existing zoning and Redevelopment uh allows um but as I said if we're comparing to that I think we really should compare uh you know we should be uh continuing to make the argument that this would be better than and better than on the storm water management perspective is uh the right you know I think I think we can't lose sight of that I think we have to think about those impacts on neighbors that's really that's really critically important uh as far as look I'm I don't mean to get heated about this but you cannot tell me that it's disingenuous to make an environmental argument regarding tree cover environmental impact related to density uh to say to suggest that that is that there's any kind of disingenuousness about that uh all respect to the credentials of the member of the public who testified uh you cannot argue from a sing the impacts on a on a lot level or a neighborhood level compared to to a system level and I would really expect someone to be thinking about the system level impacts of environmental system level impacts that result from systemically allowing large Le development at the expense of smaller lot development and I'm just going to say you can have an argument about it but to suggest that something else is a disingenuous argument is is frankly offensive and when I see the damage to the tree cover and tree canopy that results from the large know from the from the from the large red large lot Redevelopment projects or the or the the the the Mansion redevelopments I mean people let that slide in this town but God forbid you talk about a project like this and all of a sudden you know uh enough said but okay I'm sorry n could you clarify on Grover and Harris what you I just mean I just mean that there are did you mean the the lots that have been redeveloped and a and a larger structure was put on them was that that is I'm sorry that I was not specific and clear but yes there are there are modest homes that date back decades that have been replaced by extremely large scale homes that you know to my eye are out of character they change the character of of of the community um visually um and economically and uh and I see that throughout out the town wherever I walk and um you know I think it's a matter of perspective whether that's changing the character of community or whether you know having more houses in a given area is changing the character of community but preserving the economic profile of the community um you know I think one is less of an impact less of a change of character than the other but uh that I I just want to make the point that there's not just one definition of changing character yeah and and that as of right a very very large home that would be very much out of character with the rest of the neighborhood at least as it's been testified to and as we've seen um on maps and such uh could be built um so I would like to um to speak to the um to the phrase slight of hand which was raised by a a few um or maybe two or three people who testified um uh and um maybe I shouldn't have repeated the phrase but the but the the point being um that we're somehow uh being asked to back into a um um allowing something that um the master plan or testimony from um board members and professionals during master plan deliberations um you know promised would not happen so um I think that's a mistaken notion at least um as regards to um you know the impact of of the subdivision and whatnot but I would ask maybe Mr Lesco and um any of the applicants um experts to to talk about that a little bit uh sure Madam chair I'm I'm happy to begin with um where to start so I I think in those conversations about the master plan I was very clear that if we are going to be changing zoning uh uh we need to do analysis we need to go through the whole uh process um with public Outreach with the introduction the planning Board review uh so on and so forth probably an even further process um you know like we went even further with the master plan to to hear more voices uh on the other hand this application is a subdivision application first and foremost from one lot into two uh you know one conforming one into two non-conforming ones we hear these prior to this most recent master plan you know multiple times a year I don't think I mean even the um the concept review was December of 2022 I think I got that wrong before um almost a full year before the the new master plan was adopted uh so I don't you know if the suggestion is this is an end around way to implement the you know the the perceived zoning changes in the master plan uh I just don't think that's the case um now onto the ma the master plan analysis in and of itself uh within my document or with within the report that I gave you know this isn't a slam dunk this isn't something that it you know the master plan says yes do this we want this all over um this is you know there are there are two sides to it uh as I described earlier uh in my introduction you know the master plan does say growth in places like the shopping center but it also says to uh respect uh the the fabric in the existing neighborhoods uh as I stated earlier and you know sometimes there are applications where it's so clear that you know something is that slam dunk there hardly even needs to be testimony other times there are the ones where there are nuance and there needs to be testimony um and I this is you know one of those ones that there needs to be testimony against uh what the master plan says uh or I shouldn't say against but you know in line master plan says in line with the municipal land use law uh and that's what needs to be considered uh frankly I haven't heard the strongest case so far um to support approving those variances uh uh but you know anyway just back to your original question you know I the insinuation that this master plan paved the way for this or paved the way for this to get around all the things that were said uh I just don't think that's the case um thank you Justin um Julie capoli and then David Cohen thank you um I think it would be helpful to know again what the scenarios are so if we did uh approve a subdivision but did not approve any kind of um configuration how much could be built like could they actually build the same thing on that we're seeing on each lot but we would just not have input um like and then again if they did not subdivide the lot how many square foot would they be allowed to build on and how much coverage would happen there um so I don't know if Justin wants to take that or Derek certainly um so I I think as was testified earlier uh you know one single one single home could be built there of about 4,000 5,000 square feet F feet um you would notice the difference between that and the 800 foot house next to it uh one other option would be to have the house and the accessory dwelling unit uh generally the number for accessory dwelling units that we often come to is 800 square feet uh there's also uh an allowance for 25% of the size of the single family house so if a big single family house could be built a bigger accessory dwelling unit could also you know could be built um within the bulk uh requirements as have been discussed tonight like impervious coverage so I think that was testified at about 3,800 foot house 1,200 foot Adu uh so those are the things that could happen and either in either of those cases the board any board would not see that application it would just you know they'd come come in for their building permits their zoning permit they'd start building that and that those might be the kind of houses that I think Nat uh you know might have been referring to that you walk around you see a construction site six months later you see a much bigger house um the other options uh with the subdivision of land uh it's really not like there's one option you know we've seen one thing here um the closest to a bught would be a house in the front and an Adu probably no more than 800 square feet in the back um but that's really not necessarily a byright situation because the variance is being requested uh to split up the lot so that's where those conditions or or the negotiation could come in um and it does not need to be maxed out based on the lot obviously not being maxed out I think uh I forgot what I said earlier but it's a difference of maybe 12% of the size so conditions could be put on that um and then obviously we're seeing the the situation tonight where variances are requested to put the houses in the rear uh you know with the variances if they were approved the way they are and at the size they are so I I hope that kind of helped yeah that helps a lot thank you David Cohen and then Owen yeah I did want to start to talk a little bit about the placement of the adus in front um and I I had originally supported that notion when when the concept review came I do think that I'm I'm leaning in the other direction at this point I think that and it's not just because of the public testimony although I I heard several members of the public sort of say that they would prefer to have the primary dwelling in front and the Adu and back I think one reason and I think this goes to what the members of the public talked about is that it becomes clear that it's four houses when the little house is in front because you can see the bigger house in the rear um whereas if the bigger house is in front and the little hous is in the rear um from a neighborhood character feeling like it's just two houses is a lot more achievable um and the the second piece of my Evolution and my thinking is that there has been a fair amount of Redevelopment of Ying street where the little houses have already come down and been replaced by quite large houses so I think this idea of having the the smaller structures in front to maintain the character of the streetcape it's the the horse is sort of already out of the barn on that and and and so I think there there good reasons for having the accessory structure in the rear and uh I think the positives of having the smaller structures in front um are um are no longer that compelling to me and I think I would I would support actually reversing it and getting rid of those variances that's my feeling currently I agree with that um Owen O'Donnell and then Alvin Macwan for about the third time this evening David has anticipated exactly so um my my main question though is doesn't the ordinance according as far as I understand says that the adus have to be behind the main building and isn't this exactly how we got into trouble with another another application where we decided that the ordinance didn't really say what the ordinance actually said I don't think it's exactly like but I mean I take your point I think there's here that I think I think it's um you know different in important ways but perception wise uh point taken yeah but um but there is a lot here that I do do like and I actually do like the concept of the adus in front but I don't think that we really should go down that road in temp fate or maybe invite Council to Noodle over whether it um you know not before this application right dealt with one way or the other but at some point in the future the circumstances under which adus in front would be allowed or preferable or or something I'm not I don't mean to make work for Council goodness knows they have enough on their plate but um but yeah take your point yeah thanks Owen um Alvin I like the idea let's kick it the council let them let them take responsibility if it go if it goes bad hey we could always blend Council you know um I I I guess uh um sort of my focus is again is on this that this Evolution as I see it of of of the adus I mean until there was the ordinance um there was you could only have one Adu I believe on on on the property and it had to be attached to the main building now we passed the ordinance and it's change we passed the ordinance and some things have been modified for another thing it's been modified is there's no longer a requirement that the Adu and the main building be be attached they they could be totally separate I also don't think that the owner of the Adu any longer has to live on on the property so again you you have you have that um back to to the you know the issue of one Adu on on a property well you know this is interesting because you subdivide the property and then you get an ad you can have two separate building and two separate adus there seems to be I'm I'm just concerned there seems to be this expansion that's sort of that's going on onto it onto a statute that's re relatively relatively new and what we're working out and I guess that that sort of is my concern um what you know you know is is the reason for the Adu just totally arbitrary or was there some you know generally or was was there really some reason why why it was left the way it was with with with the um with the Adu in the rear and the main and the main and the main um building in in front if you will and if it is if if Jerry or someone could could speak to that that that also would be sort of helpful because I'm still you know I'm still going back and forth over just over the main thing reason and that and what's going to go come down to is if we decide to subdivide should you know should the variances be granted here should we should we now you know now stretch again the you know the meaning or the an exception to the ordinance here um should well yeah to should you know should we do that is is that a particularly wise thing to do so that if hopefully you understand where I'm coming from and you can that's that's my comment my concern okay thank you um Mia's hand went up so I I'm guessing that she might be responding at least in part to uh a question that you raised am I WR Mia or do you have something else yeah I just I was just gonna say Alvin um you know the Adu ordinance um well technically knew it was really about harmonizing what had been um we had a a flat in the I I think in the former Township it was called the the flat ordinance and in the former buau it was uh secondary dwelling um if I remember correctly in one it had to be attached I think it was the the township and and in the burough it could be detached I I can't remember exactly but you know the the we have had sorry David did you w to no I finish what you're saying just there one or two little things I wanna yeah yeah anyway um I you know that so I mean as as you know we we've we've had uh Princeton was was a forerunner and we we have had some form of Adu for for many decades um and and the Adu ordinance was just harmonizing so that in the in the burough and the township there was some consistency of of Regulation and also bringing it um uh into consistency with what the ARP had recommended as a model ordinance and in addition um uh the you know was considered to be unconstitutional to regulate um who could inhabited and that you know had had had to do with um the uh owner occupancy but I I mean I don't want to get into all of that the point being to to specifically answer your question the idea of having the the provision for having the Adu and back was to maintain the consistency of streetcape and neighborhood character to to to David's point because there has been already substantial eradication of the character of these neighborhoods with the teod downs and mcmansions it's hard to say if if if you have the larger house in front is that more consistent with the newer streetcape on streets in which there has been that substantial erosion um having the smaller uh if you had the Adu in front that might be more consistent with with what was typically the smaller uh structures uh that were traditionally the the case in these neighborhoods um and just to to um so you know I don't have an answer there it's just you know could go either way but just stepping back for minute um in um in terms of you know the the master plan issue and and um you know this does this application long predates the master plan um and uh you know certainly the the the master plan does talk about um ways to maintain the character of neighborhoods that have long had smaller structures that were uh more accessible from a price point for families of lesser means and I'm I'm I'm speaking very relatively um and uh I'm not sure that we will you know I think for this application we really need to be looking at what Jerry will um articulate for us when when we get Farther Along which is um Eng granting looking at the variances and and do the looking at the the potential detriments and I think we can listen to the to the neighbors um versus the benefits I think overall where we are going with these neighborhoods our choices for better or worse are we don't have the option to preserve exactly what was and to Nat's point the question is um is there any way to prevent the wholesale um mcmansion isation of what were traditionally middleclass neighborhoods in Princeton and that is you know what we have been struggling with for for a very long time um with the neighborhood character initiative with you know trying to prevent the the teardowns and and mcmansions and this is one uh way that has been been proposed by the applicant to um you know create some alternative which is more smaller structures nevertheless we have to Grapple as a planning board whether this particular proposal um in its Essence it will result in more detriment than more benefits um and I'm I um look forward to to to you know hearing my my colleagues and and the board attorney and the planner's opinion well I think Justin has has been has opined on that already but um anyway that's it that's what I want say thank you thanks Mia David yeah so I just wanted to say a word or two more about um the placement of the adus um I really think it was you know in the former buau the supplemental or the secondary dwellings were intended to not detract from the single family character of the neighborhoods they existed in that's why they were required to be in back that's why you required not to have the door facing the street and so if you go through the former burrow and you look at where there were secondary dwellings you they were a little Carriage House way in the back sometimes they were part of the main structure but the door was you know there was a wrap around porch and the door was to the side and it wasn't visible from the street and it was all about keeping this sort of single family character what it was in the township was virtually the the opposite it was like you were encouraged it was like an ot's two family house where the flat was supposed to be facing the street they were you know almost always uh attached side by side and two family structures weren't allowed in the township but they were in the burough so the burough didn't need a fake two family dwelling they allowed two family dwellings but the the township sort of needed uh to provide for that so I think that's the reason for the difference between the two and in the effort to preserve neighborhood character as Mia said the consultant who helped draft who who was who helped draft the ad ordinance it was the same consultant who drafted the neighborhood character section of our code he was he sort of came down on the side of the burrow physical characteristics of the adus to embrace that idea of you know people like their single family neighborhoods and let's keep them looking like single family neighborhoods even though we're allowing more families to be located in them at least that's my sense of how things got written the way they were so that goes back to my point of you know why I'm now preferring to keep the Adu and back is you know I'm I think that's more in the spirit of the way the ordinance was written and that in this case the benefit of going against the ordinance is is minimal um because of the way the character of the neighborhood has already changed I did also want to just say one thing to those who've been commenting about the master plan which is that in the information gathering process you know the thing that people really said they wanted more of in Princeton were smaller houses on smaller Lots single family houses people weren't thrilled about you know lots more apartment buildings and stuff like that which we've ended up doing you know under the um affordable housing litigation you know we've essentially had to do that but you know there was a strong sentiment that people wanted to have more small houses on small lots and I think that this application um if we can massage it uh really does respond to that um very widespread sentiment that you know I heard uh as I went to the open houses for the master plan um thank you David and thank you Mia for really really good perspective from um related to those ordinances Mia you have more to say yeah I just I just want to add one more thing which is that you know um adus I one of my concerns is the use of adus because it is a tool that's available to achieve more smaller houses and more Lots in a way that um adus were not intended and as someone who was very involved with the Adu orance we really wanted adus to be used in what they are what they were traditionally conceived of as as a as an accessory dwelling not a duplex not a Cottage Court not any of those things adus were really supposed to be accessory and you know I think to the point to about the master plan and about you know working to try to um create missing middle housing and you know to David's point of what you know in in some neighborhoods um working to retain the character of smaller houses and and possibly on smaller lots adus that you know that would involve duplexes triplexes and and a and a and a more lengthy process along the lines of what Justin uh described of analyzing the neighborhoods and coming up with through a public process um you know looking at zoning changes um and and and I I and I'm not saying I'm not comment saying that this is what this is but I'm just saying as a cautionary note it is a concern of mine that there is I I perceive a push to to use adus as an interim way of jumping ahead um uh and getting out ahead of of where we are of where the council is in terms of you know doing that careful analysis and adus are wonderful for what they are but let's keep them what they are and not make them what they what they were not ever intended to be which is duplexes triplexes or any of those things and I just as a general comment for us as a town I think that's really important to to do the you know yeah so I've said enough that's it thank you um so we have about 10 minutes I I really do whe there's um we're not going to conclude um everything related to this application tonight but I would like to um give the applicant some guidance um about you know a path forward um and what this board is interested in um seeing and what I've heard is [Music] um well uh I guess I I I want to hear what board members have to say first about the um uh uh the subdivision um of this oversized lot into two slightly undersized lots and whether um um you want to get a sense or W to know whether my sense that the board is comfortable with that is correct um if anyone strongly disagrees with that I'd like for you to say so and then I also want to uh yep yes Mr Cohen yeah I just want to say you know I think we have very regularly granted this type of subdivision when a neighborhood has so many similar Lots as what is being proposed in this in this subdivision it's very hard for me you know to say oh you know it's fine for those five Lots over there because they existed before zoning but it's not fine for these to be in the same character as the rest of the neighborhood reality is that zoning is a very crude tool and in many cases throughout Princeton lot sizes were created by zoning which were not right for the neighborhoods in on which they were imposed and I think this is one of those and you know I I have a hard time um saying why we wouldn't permit the subdivision that's my feeling yep um that is my feeling as well um and I'm not seeing any heads shaking or eyes rolling back in heads or any any other body language that would lead me to believe uh that there's um bad feelings about that so with regard to the second bucket of uh the second issue of the um accessory dwellings and the second bucket of variances proposed um uh what what I have heard um based on board comments is that the board is not comfortable with that second bucket of variances meaning the um upon reflection the primary dwellings would go in front [Music] um and [Music] um I think to to a point that somebody raised it would be good to see parking also behind the dwellings and not um parking in front of the primary dwelling um and so I guess I would look to um uh Mr Lesco and Mr Mueller what what do what is the right um sorry I'm I'm feeling um pretty aired out at this point even though I've talked less than I sometimes do um path forward what do we want for the um if I have summarized what um what I think is the board sentiment what is the path um from this point forward what do we want the applicant to come back with um if we set a date for a follow-up meeting um what what do we want and need for them to provide uh 10 days beforehand um and is there a a you know a decision well I I we're not at a point where we can you know talk through a resolution and um um uh conditions and that kind of thing tonight so Mr Lesco what's your advice sure uh so what I've heard tonight um discussion of the adus you know essentially swapping the Adu in the house houses is um potential changes to the driveway including the parking behind and and maybe some turning uh or other changes that relate to the trees that would not uh be viable anymore that could maybe change the driveway um then the trees themselves are another issue that I think we need to take a look at you know just what they can save and we'll propose to save versus what's just not realistic to even think um would be saved so an actual landscape plan yes yes that's correct uh my main point and I could keep going over the go further on the details but I think essentially we will need to see new documents uh a new set of plans based on the the changes that are being proposed um and staff would need time to review them probably revise memos uh for the board and and for the public and for the applicant um so I'm certainly not saying hey let's put this on next Thursday night um I think we would need a decent amount of time to get those documents uh within whatever reasonable amount of time the applicant could provide them and then then have time to write our own memos you know maybe a week before that 10day period um go ahead Jerry and then bimer and then uh David Cohen go ahead Jerry I certainly might have misunderstood what what may was was saying I thought she was raising the question of whether we even should per as a as a condition of granting the subdivision if that's what we do whether we should even permit the adus or whether they're being misused here and Mia can certainly jump in no I I I wasn't I I I was just I was actually speaking speaking more generally I was speaking more generally yeah and it seems to me there's a separate question of just the level of intensity of development on the site it was interesting when Mr the Mr clac uh indicated that you basically constraints prevented him from doing certain things with respect to storm water management well the constraints are all function of of the development it wasn't environmental constraints so I think that's worth talking about Mr bodimer Mr Cohen and then Claudia Anderson excuse me I just I know that we're we've I think we've backed away from any discussion about conditions but I did I just wanted to say I I wouldn't I'm not comfortable uh with imposing conditions that have to do with the screening of visibilities of cars I I just I just think that's a condition that would be excessive given what you can see walking on any Street to Google street view of viewing it's a normal thing to see cars I don't know that why it seems to be associated with some kind of lower scale development I mean there's nothing low scale about the tree trees NE you know Tree Street neighborhood and cars parked everywhere you see cars everywhere it's it's it's like well in this case the cars was basically in the front yard you don't see cars in the front yard you see them on the driveway or on the speet but but but yeah that's a maybe a conversation for I'm seeing their naked car oh my God I mean okay your point is taken Mr Cohen and then Claudia yeah to to Jerry's point I think very specifically I want the applicant to come back with an application that does not use the F bonus they should be using the 25% f um I would like to see them shooting for a 36% impervious coverage as they would have to if these were quarter acre lots and not 22 acre lots I know that's a big ask but I think that that's an appropriate ask [Music] um you you know and I think that they should be looking seriously at maximizing their storm water management and again to Jerry's point if that means reducing the size of the primary dwelling you know that should be in the toolkit for uh meeting these sort of more stringent expectations thank you br uh oh Claudia Wilson Anderson did your hand went down did you want to say something um Mr Cohen said exactly what I was going to say love that uh Freddy Pearl nter yeah uh two things one from an environmental standpoint um putting up a lot of little trees really does not compensate for taking down old non diseased trees and to the extent that you can save the Big Trees um either by impervious pavement or whatever else um certainly from an environmental standpoint I think we would like to see you do that um jeral my other question actually is to you and that is you started off on the Humbert case if we do this as a subdivision and then have conditions um where do we stand with regard to Humber and are we getting close to it or does it depend upon how many condition you I'm not I'm still unclear as to how H applies to this if at all to this development yeah I mean I I thought it was something that was worth considering I frankly think there's a real differentiation between Humbert and what we're doing here so I really don't think it applies okay thanks um it's 11 o'clock uh council president saxs you get the last word I I just thank you I just want to say you know it's uh someone mentioned about this being a family who's trying to remain in Princeton and to to to access the equity in their land in order to stay in this community rather than throwing up their hands and putting it up for sale and having a developer come in and create a mcmansion and so I just I think we all support that and and I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that you know the more time we and and I think we do need more time but just be sensitive to the fact that every trip to the planning board costs more money for the applicant and that is part of the reason why many families do just say you know don't choose what this applicant is is doing and if we could somehow find a way in which they could continue to remain in the community in which they've raised their children and they work here and live here and and I just want to say personally that I appreciate that they are trying to to to stay here and and and also in in the process you know create more smaller housing and if there's a way they can do it and that is um you know more environmentally you know gets us where we want to go environmentally um and and um is sensitive to some of the the concerns that the the immediate neighbors have raised and um you know I I think that there's a a path forward here that that could be um a productive one uh I I can't say exactly what that would be but I I did want to just end by saying that you know let let let's acknowledge that this is something that we would like to see possible for for families like this to to to remain and so I appreciate that effort um certainly agree 100% with what you said and it's a really good good way to conclude Mr Kennedy do you have what you need can you work with staff on a date certain I I I I do um though just one one quick comment to council president sack's last comment which which um actually rung true with with the applicant um and um you know that this would be our our third planning board meeting and and ultimately um there seem to be some consensus on just subdividing and I just would toss out there uh I know it is late but if there was any incl explation that that the board would be in would consider just subdividing and and stepping away from the site plan um uh in the interest of them uh perhaps not bleeding into another meeting and redesigning it um they would that that would be uh um a of interest to them um uh absent that I think we do have the guidance about coming back with the flip design trying to get some more storm water management and that guidance but I'll just throw out there kind of as a segue to that to that last comment if there was an inclination if we were to kind of forget the rest of the piece of this and and just um uh not do not do the site plan and and essentially be stuck not doing adus because we did not have the site plan approved they they would be amable to that too just in the interest of not redesigning the project um I saw a couple of heads shaking no um I did too I want to hear what what Mr Cohen has to say I mean my head was shaking no and then I was thinking about a little bit more I mean what I'm concerned about is them coming back within as of right application with 49% impervious coverage and you know none of the benefits that we've been talking about negotiating here um I suppose we could condition the subdivision on saying you have to meet the 36% you know imperious coverage that you would have to if these were conforming lots and you can't have the uh the f um adjustment and that would help a little bit but and I am I am sympathetic you know to the point that Mia was making and that you're making Ryan so um I will say I really don't want to have a situation where these become two approved lots and with all the uh all the problems that we've identified unresolved so and I I know you weren't making a motion to this effect but um uh does anyone want to make a motion to approve a subdivision with the conditions the simple but very important conditions that David just mentioned um and not require the applicant to come back um can I just ask for some clarification on that uh proposed rout um so if the subdivision was approved with the conditions attached would the uh applicant be allowed to sell one of the