got your invite good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the Princeton planning board on Tuesday April 18th 2024 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the resolution of regularly scheduled meetings of the planning board of Princeton for February 2024 through January 2025 a copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 8 2024 legal notice on the adoption of said resolution was published in the January 12th 2024 edition of the Princeton packet notice of this meeting also 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 in the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday January 17th 2023 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 board members and staff those wishing to comment orally when the time comes should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions button or the 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 three minutes or less a countdown clock will be used to help speakers keep track of time and speakers who exceed three minutes will be interrupted inappropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted G will you call the role Please Mr bimer here miss capoli here Mr Cohen here Mr Macwan here miss Nuka here Mr odonnell here Mr pearlmutter Miss pear I'm sorry that's okay Miss sax here Mr Taylor Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here we have a quorum thank you um uh with announcements I first would apologize to members of the public for being um a little late to start tonight we had some connection problems um there are 30 members of the public uh who are in the attendees room um that's just FYI um and Mr Lesco do you have an announcement as well regarding upcoming meetings yes I do Madam chair thank you and uh good evening members of the planning board and members of the public um the meeting originally scheduled for May 2nd I believe was the date uh which would have been the next meeting of this board uh has been pushed back to May uh 23rd uh so no meeting on the 2 that meeting will be on the 23rd and I expect we'll discuss the 344 Nassau application great thank you um I also want to let um all of the board and the public know about a public open house for a concept designed for Hines Plaza the um engineering office uh sent around a flyer today um it says this will be a dynamic and inter active Workshop where attendees can come and go as they please um it is taking place from 5: to 700 p.m on May 2nd um at the Princeton Public Library community room so the room right off of Hines Plaza or on Hines Plaza um that opens up uh to the plaza so again uh public open house for concept plan for Hines Plaza um May 2nd 5 to 7 interactive uh come and go as you please um any other um I happen to think Hines Plaza is just about perfect so so I'll be interested to see what all the ideas are for improving it um are there any other uh announcements from board members or staff seeing none [Music] um let us move to subcommittee reports Mr Cohen is there a report from the site plan yes so we met uh just yesterday and we reviewed two applications one from Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart which is before the board this evening uh and we did conclude that it was um indeed a minor site plan that it should be categorized as such but obviously uh because it's a major subdivision the board still needs to review it um so that's why it's before the board tonight and the other application we reviewed was from Princeton University um had to do with some minor modifications to the the uh Art Museum uh basically putting some screening up uh at the roof level to screen um solo tube uh light transfer devices that uh will help to bring natural daylight into the gallery spaces um they projected above the you know the level of the parit so they needed to add some screening for that and they also had some design details relating to recladding the um existing building which was a mar the Maran building Marquan Library which was the one remaining part of the um of the old art museum uh and had been presented with um sort of incomplete design detail that's time of the original application um and they have since uh finalized the design for that they presented that as well and the committee uh again found it qualified as a minor site plan and because there were no variances or other special circumstances uh we recommended it to the chair to to miss Wellen for administrative approval okay is there a um a 10day public notice requirement if there are no good that's correct good um thank you for that uh any other subcommittee reports I don't think so okay um then let's move on to Applications the first is from Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart this is a preliminary and final major subdivision and minor site plan uh on Great Road and Drake's Corner Road this is block 301 Lots one two and three it's file number p2323 d417 sfpm [Music] um Mr meller can you speak to proper notice and jurisdiction yes approv for publication and service of prop is proper and the board has jurisdiction thank you uh Mr leco you want to get us started certainly thank you madam chair Jerry I'm ready to be sworn in whenever you are yeah um do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give me the truth yes I do so one our friend thank you uh thank you madam chair um I would like to share my screen I'm G to try to keep my presentations for the two cases tonight uh more brief than usual uh so what I'm showing now is uh the NJ uh parcel Explorer publicly available from Rowan University um this is somewhat the whole view of Princeton I'll zoom into the northwest corner of town um and we're on the corner of the Great Road and Drake's Corner Road um for the application before you this evening it includes three current Parcels uh the largest parcel uh includes the Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart an independent uh K8 boy school um the other two Parcels are uh currently have single family residential houses on them uh and the parcels are all within the ra and RB zones of the former Township the parcels are not located within any locally designated historic districts uh though the lot with the school on it was designated as eligible for State historic district designation by the state historic preservation office in 2020 based on the structures in the Northwest area of the lot um additionally the Princeton master plan includes the manor house building uh as a site that should be studied uh and may be appropriate for historic designation um none of these structures are being changed as part of this application and the historic preservation commission deferred review of the application uh essentially The Proposal will create five Lots where three currently exist Justin if I may interrupt for one second here uh if we could Mark is is the the two uh areals you showed as PB one and two okay okay go ahead sorry so uh as I was starting to say the proposal proposal is to create five Lots where three currently exist uh within that a currently non-complying lot uh will become complying uh in relation to the minimum lot size of its Zone uh a driveway that you see here uh will also be relocated as councilman Cohen stated before the site plan application was classified as Minor by the site plan committee though the application is before the board because of the associated subdivision application no Varian are being requested um and I will let the applicant further describe the proposal and hold my comments till after their presentation um Derek and Dan also have a engineering and Zoning memo uh with a variety of comments thank you um okay um Derek and Dan uh is there anything that you want to flag for the board before we hear from from the applicant anything any red flags anything um of particular note Mr Weissman um actually Jerry why don't you swear in Dan and Derek right now Dan and Derek if you raise right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I do just want to airm thank you madam chair good evening everybody um there's uh really three things that uh I think the applicant should address that is worth bringing attention to um they're out lined in the memo um the first is the right of waywith on Drake's Corner Road uh currently it is substandard to the uh master plan roadway designation um the it's designated as a local Street which requires a 50 foot right of way um and Drake's Corner Road in this area ranges in right away between 33 and 41 a half feet um so with that the subdivision ordinance requires that additional RightWay be dedicated to the municipality um as this subdivision is only on half of the side of the street only half of the required width uh to get to that 50 foot would be required to be dedicated um but uh that's an item that uh should be addressed by the applicant um Additionally the subdivision ordinance uh require subdivision applications to reconstruct existing roadways uh that are contiguous to the property to the center line of the road um the engineering and Zoning memo outlines the required widths that are required um Great Road is a secondary arterial contains 11 foot lanes and three foot shoulders which meet the spatial standards and Drake's Corner Road is classified again as a local Street uh contains approximately 9 foot lanes and also meets those spatial standards um the applicant should either update the plans to reflect these roadway reconstructions or request a waiver from this requirement uh and thirdly um the again the subdivision ordinance requires sidewalks and bicycle paths for final subdivision applications um where the Princeton Community master plan calls for future sidewalk or uh bicycle path networks um in that area uh they're required to be constructed um or where uh no such sidewalk or bicycle path exists um or a construction of one is not imminent uh there would be a payment in in Le of uh to the municipality for the future construction of of such a path um this hasn't been reflected on these plans um the applicant should either construct and install a path uh again this is only on on the Great Road portion not on the Drake's Corner um but uh they should either construct and install this path um or provide payment in L of or a request waiver from this requirement and those were the the three things that I I just wanted to touch on before the the applicant presented that I thought was worthwhile for the board to hear okay great uh anything to add Mr prer uh yes Madam chair there's a existing baseball field uh that's going to be bisected by the great Road subdivision so um this is the use of the school is a conditional use in the ra and RB zones so if that lot changes ownership uh that baseball field would no longer be permitted there we've asked that to be removed but I'm I'm asking that the applicants speak to what their plans are for that uh that baseball field so that's all I have okay and if if I may ask Dan a question uh Dan you talked about of the three your three items you talked about one of the options for the U the applicant is to seek waivers what about the first one is that even a waiver could be sought it's part of the it's it's in the subdivision ordinance waiver could be sought um if in the future somewhere down the road Drake's Corner were to be uh improved um right away would have to be grabbed at that time which would require another subdivision application okay so if there was a time to to obtain that right away now would be that time y thank you good um you know I I I feel like I should say uh and maybe I should have said this before I I do not believe that I have a conflict but I do want to um disclos that my son who is now uh 33 uh went to Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart um for for uh third through 8th grade maybe fourth through eth grade not really sure anyway um I want to confirm Mr Mueller um with you that that I have no conflict I have not sent checks to the the school in a long time for tuition um yeah you do not have a conflict okay all right thank you y uh um Mr Casey are you representing I am indeed yes Academy tonight thank you welcome yeah well thank you madam chair and uh members of the planning board it's a it's an honor to be here to you uh with you tonight um in the spirit of f disclosure I had the honor of of being a trustee at Princeton Academy for seven years and am uh am still helping them out um and uh tonight Justin did a lovely job of recapping we're here for tonight essentially we are we're carving out two New Lots that we're going to bank I guess is probably a decent way to say it there's no development or construction proposed at this time um the we are making so we also own just so everyone understands we own 41 and 73 Drakes Corner also and so in this subdivision we're making 73 Dres a conforming 3 acre lot um 41 Dres will remain conforming but it'll be shrunk a little bit down to four acres so it'll go four acres 3 acres and then the new lot that we're proposing where the driveway would be relocated eventually would be a three acre lot as well um so so the Great Road lot right um the plan is to to Market to Market it all I I think is probably a nice way of saying it but there's no buyers right now I'm sure that people who are here in the audience are are inquisitive and wanting to know um and we certainly are doing this um to help sustain our school um as as many people know we announced the closure of our school last year but through some some Goodwill and some donations and a lot of hard work and just love for Princeton Academy um the school is going to remain open um part of that is is tied to this project I would say um So currently 41 and 73 Drakes Corner Road if you were to drive by them you could see that they're for sale um and the idea here is God to not have anything built honestly um in terms of of what is going to be on um the Drake's corner lot Road the new road the new lot I'm sorry have been in in um in pretty pretty good negotiations with the Ridge View Conservancy about that lot and I can read to you what uh Chris bar from on behalf of Ridgeview Conservancy said um that he said I I think it would be fine to say that Princeton Academy is in advanced negotiations with Ridge viw Conservancy a local land trust to purchase proposed lot 3.02 for conservation and that subject to further confirmation approval from the bridge viw fun funding sources and that type of thing so ideally that's what we would love to have happen um is that nothing changes on that lot except that um it becomes preserved so um that's where we are right now um as I said nothing is is planned in terms of development um we're not here to seek any variances for what we're trying to accomplish um the idea would be that whoever does ultimately Buy one of these Lots um and and wants to build on it they're going to have to come back and get get whatever approvals that are required of for planning and site plan um this is this is simply to carve these conforming Lots out so that we have them and and can sell them if the if the uh if it's going to help our school um but the idea would be to to try to to try to keep them friendly to Friendly owners and hopefully maybe never develop them but I can't speak to that with with complete clarity as for Mr bridger's comment about the baseball field so um we did the idea for the Great Road Lot was to whoever was going to buy that um and we did we did have a couple people that were interested in it and the idea would have been to to get an easement or some some sort of deed restriction to allow us to keep our baseball field there for you know four or five 5 years and potentially the routing of our cross country field would have remained the same during that time and then ultimately that would have burned through and we would have to move the baseball field back onto the remaining campus um so that so point being is like we're we're always thinking of creative ways to maintain the Integrity of 1128 and the P campus while at the same time understanding the financial needs to run a k through eight all boys Catholic School in Princeton New Jersey which is uh which is challenging so um I have tonight with me our engineer who will testify about the planning who prepared at Eric rup nine from uh golden bomb Bale I also have Tom Maher who is a TR current trustee at Princeton Academy should there be any additional questions that um that you might have but um that's all I have for now i' I'd be happy to introduce Eric and get sworn and have him tell you about the plan um that sounds good and we should swear Mr Mah as well um just in case he he uh testifies we won't have to stop and do that again so Mr meller yep um go go ahead yeah if both of you could raise your right hand okay um do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give is it will be the truth yes I do good um and could each of you you spell your um State your full name and spell your last name mine is Tom R and the last name is spelled m e a g h e r a very good Irish name Eric Ru Marine r u p n a r a i n thank you I'd call Eric to testify please yeah Eric um you've testified before this board before correct correct and you've been uh you've been an expert witness before this board correct correct Madam chair can I qualify him as an expert would you like me to Vader him Mr ruar and can can you talk a bit about your credentials your degrees your licensed in New Jersey Etc certainly so I'm currently licensed in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania I've been licensed in New Jersey since I believe 2003 my license are currently valid and in good standing I received a bachelor's degree from Villanova University in 1997 in civil engineering and a master's from the same in 2001 uh since graduating in '97 I've been practicing almost exclusively in the civil engineering Land Development field representing both um private homeowners and uh Developers for residential and Commercial projects uh throughout the state thank you we accept your qualifications thank you Eric if you could just um walk us through the uh the U major subdivision application that you've created for us please do you need to share your screen is there can are there things to look at as you speak or I'm sorry I don't mean to no no no no I I think it's a good idea to interrupt but it's typically um you know the the board is looking at a plan as the engineer describes what's going on there so I think it would be helpful if we could do that yeah sure um I can share my screen if I think uh let's go hold on here hopefully nothing else pops up God knows yeah we can see now we can see the um I guess the first sheet of your all right great plan PDF all right um all right can you see it yeah I can see to Mr Ru see it okay so the current proposal before the board is for subdivision of three lots into five Lots um as Mr Casey indicated the total parcel is about 49.6 acres and currently there are two existing residential dwellings that fronts on dr's road um those dwellings are lots are identified as lot 1.01 and lot 2.01 lot 1.01 is an oversized lot for the existing zoning and lot 2.01 that is an undersized lot what the applicant is proposing tonight is to shift the lot lines between Lots 2.01 and 1.01 essentially moving that lot line to the right or to the east along Drake's Corner Road and then likewise the Westerly property line of lot 2.01 that line will shift to the West um by moving the lot lines around what the applicant is proposing is to reduce lot 1.01 to 4 Acres which is conforming to the zone and to increase lot 2.01 to three acres which also makes that lot conforming to the Zone presently lot 2.01 that is an undersized lot and the applicant is bringing that lot into conformity in addition to modification of the two existing Lots the applicant is also proposing a new lot that will front on Drake's Corner Road that lot is identified as lot 3.02 on the map in front of the board and that lot will be approximately 3 acres in size and meets all of the bulk standards for the um for this particular Zone within this existing lot is the driveway access from the school's property to Drake Corner Road any construction unlock 3.02 will require relocation and reconstruction of the existing driveway um what we've also showed on this plan is to the west of the proposed lot line for lot 3.02 is where the new driveway will be located and the new driveway will be shifted to the west and access to the new Drive will also be Prov provided from dr's Corner Road construction of this new driveway will require tree removal the applic has located all of the existing trees within the limits of disturbance that will be impacted by construction of the new driveway the trees are located and they've been cited on the site plan that's been submitted as part of the applicant's um file in addition to the trees that will be removed several utilities that currently runs along the existing driveway and to the pump house that's located in this southernly southwesterly corner of of the property those utilities will also have to be relocated in the event that there's construction on the new lot that we're creating those the relocation of those utilities excuse me would be located along the new Westerly property line of Loot 3.02 and will also follow along the Northerly property line or what would be the rare property line of loot 3.02 essentially that is the bulk of the construction activity that would be required if the board votes favorably to approve the subdivision no other construction is being proposed to either Lots 1.1 or 2.01 and finally the third lot that the applicant is proposing to create is lot excuse me is lot 3.01 this slot is Will front and provide and act ACC and Frontage to this lot will be provided from Great Road which runs along the easterly property line This lot will be a fully conforming lot again the applicant is not proposing any improvements at this time um the applicant is only seeking approval to create the Lots after all of the subdivision work is completed all of the current improvements that's located on the school's property will remain almost in the exact same location again with the exception of the existing driveway to Great Road um excuse me the existing driveway to Drake's Corner Road that is the only Improvement that's anticipated as part of this subdivision the applicant is not proposing the creation of any additional impervious surface as a matter of fact relocation of the driveway will actually reduce the total amount of impervious surface on the property and you intend to relocate that driveway whether or not you sell no the new lot 3.02 um to for for preservation or for a home so one of my notes right here is that in the event that uh we do come to terms with someone like the Ridge View Conservancy the the uh the driveway would remain where it is that would be part of the okay so it would not be moved and I'll I'll say that um not to cut off Eric um in terms of services currently 41 Dres Corner Road is septic and there is the ability though um if and when we sell 41 Drakes Corner um if a buyer came along and said hey it would be more marketable if you were to give me access to sewer there is a sewer main on the Great Road that we could give a sewer line easement across that little peninsula of property that we have um down here into uh into Great Road um 73 Drakes uh was a decommission septic probably I'm guessing probably five six years ago and is tied into now the main sewer main that is on the campus that is can you see my cursor yeah yes look at that right there so this lot is tied into here there would also be um an easement that would be created for sewer service from the new proposed lot 3.02 to um to that sewer M uh as well for um the new lot on Great Road I think Eric we said could tie straight into um the Great Road I believe or there would be another sewer easement to tie into our main on our campus for that lot so no septics would be the uh the outcome correct the proposal is for the two new Lots is to provide access easement through the school's property to connect into the existing main that's right okay um I don't know Eric um I don't think I have any other questions of Eric um just looking at my notes Here quickly would it be Eric that to the question of the right of way adjustment and um the Reconstruction of the roadway and the sidewalks and bike paths is that is that Mr rub durin or is that someone else yeah that's Mr rain I mean we'll have to as per the the comments um from Dan we're going to have to update the plan to show that uh we have no objection to granting of the right of way on Drake's Corner Road um the the issue of payment of a walkway on Great Road I know that um that Dan had mentioned that um I there currently isn't walkway up there um we would ask for a waiver on that on that request um and the requirement I don't think that one was proposed on Drake's Corner Dan would have to to clarify that for me but I don't think a a walk is anywhere on Drake's Corner Road either so no so making that contiguous we would ask that we not be required to do that and I don't think that there is a requirement to do that but that would have to come from Dan in terms of confirming that yeah I think he was talking only about um uh great road but I could be misremembering um Mr Cohen and then Mr wisman yeah so in regard to the the side path on the Great Road um the question I have I think is is for staff um I know that there is a side path on the east side of portions of the Great Road I know we've made some uh efforts to try to extend it and I'm wondering if Dan maybe knows or Justin knows where uh those efforts currently stand where where the existing path exists and where the efforts to extend uh Cur currently stand because while I don't particularly Envision a path going in on the west side of the Great Road it could be very helpful to have some Financial contribution towards the path on the east side if that is imminent and in the general vicinity uh Mr Weissman yeah I can jump in there uh I did consult with the municipal engineer uh regarding any future plans uh anything that's imminent in this area um and and uh they indicated they were not aware of of of anything that's imminent um as for uh where they exist how how far down I don't know offand um I would be hesitant to just let it go Al together because this is a section of Great Road that um doesn't have much of a shoulder and the sight distance isn't great because you're going little bit around a curve and over a hill and um the it's understandable given the lay of the land and all uh that the path ends where it does on the east side of Great Road but someday um we really need to try to extend that all the way to Cherry Valley Road um that's just I feel like I remember an application in just the last few years for some kind of improvements on the lot that's directly across the Great Road here where the the one that's on the corner of bridg view and the Great Road and that we asked for some dedication of right of way there to be able to um extend the side path so um yeah I I second uh chair Wilson's concern with just granting this waiver because I think like I say there there's definitely an interest in extending the the path without KN how imminent yeah um thank you uh Mr Bridger yeah David is correct it's a lot a little bit uh further down great road towards Stewart and PDS I guess a little uh south of dr's Corners Road they did dedicate the right of way and I just checked near map and it looks like the the existing multi-purpose path ends right around where great Road West is um by 10 acre Foundation thanks we're talking about the opposite side of the road from correct corre so to have us contribute towards a sidewalk that's on the other side I mean l of having to build one or pay for or pay the same amount for one on on um the west side yeah well I I would request a waiver I mean I I I know that there there are there's case law currently on dedications of right away in general and being a condition of approvals I mean this is you're asking us to to contribute to something that's across the street that we don't own um just because we happen to be on a part of a road that doesn't make sense for a sidewalk so I'll leave it at that but I don't think it it's in our sidewalk plan Mr Casey so to say it doesn't make sense to have it um is I'm not sure what you're basing that on and also it's a it's a shared pathway and it it greatly increases safety for pedestrians and people on bikes um it's a it's on the sidewalk plan to be on our side or on the other side I believe on both sides if I understood Mr weissman's comments correctly uh that's correct it's it's a shared use path uh so it's not specific to a side of the road all right um is Mr rupner rain's uh testimony concluded yeah I believe it is Eric do you have anything else You' like to add no I don't thank you Eric thank you Mr Weissman got your hand up uh yeah I just wanted to address Mr uh Casey's question from earlier uh there is no sidewalker shared use path shown for Drake's Corner Road so the only the only paing question would be on on Great Road and your your request I have it actually printed out here but I don't remember exactly what it says Dan um the the suggestion is um uh to build or pay toward the construction of um the shared youth's path is that along the entirety of the Great Road Frontage that Princeton Academy currently owns or is it for the uh area in the along the Great Road that's that would be part of the new lot uh it it uh it would be the along the entire property uh for the subdivision in question so it would be it would be it's I think it's around a th000 ft um that be both both the proposed lot and the the academy slot and how is the um payment inl uh calculated is it by linear foot that would have to be worked out with the applicant uh all right I didn't know whether that there was a formula uh okay um thank you um councilwoman saxs yeah so are we saying I'm sorry I might have missed this but so if the property if the parcel one of these if this parcel was sold then that person who purchased it would be responsible or the academy as a condition of this um what what we're doing uh what we'd be granting tonight uh would be responsible the latter David that's my understanding yes okay I mean the only reason I I mentioned is that you know and and maybe me there will be members of the public here who will speak to the really substantial Community effort that recently went into saving this property and saving the school um from uh and and had that effort not taken place um I think we would all be here discussing something far less benign than the subdivision that we are um I think it's it was um uh you know I I applaud that Community effort I know that the school has has been one of the I I think one I'm assuming um that one of the reasons to to subdivide these properties is to um as part of uh you know ensuring um a a financially um um you know ensuring their financial future Shoring that up um so I just and I know that they are um operating in a very thin uh uh shoestring budget and I I just I am concerned about um imposing significant expenses on them and I don't know if this is but I that is I just want to voice that concern that um I I think it's I want to be as supportive as possible of what the school is doing I'm glad that we will continue to have them and that um as I said that all we're here tonight discussing is the subdivision of two properties and not the wholesale ertic of this entire parcel of land so point taken thank you David Cohen I guess you know in light of Miss sack's comments I'd like to uh if Jerry could maybe comment on the grounds for granting waivers in other words you know is financial hardship uh suitable grounds for granting this kind of waiver or what other basis uh would we Grant the waiver on Jerry you're on mute the basic standards are the r request has to be reasonable it has to come within the intent and purpose of the um subdivision or site plan section from which the waiver waiver relief is sought has to apply to a specific piece of property which seems weird but that's in the um in the municipal anus so on what that really means it can't be an undifferentiated part of a whole series of lots which are all lot at the same um and there has to be either practical difficulties or hardship to the applicant um in terms of uh if the U provision from which R Resort is is granted is literally is enforced yeah if I could add real quickly um in support of of what Jerry just said so our our position was that um as Miss Sach said we're not in the financial position to um be paying for engineering and additional sidewalks and that type of thing so if it if it is to be a requirement of whoever comes back to develop that lot that I think would be up to the board because there probably would be some planning board approval needed for the construction on that lot um because a lot is a unique lot in terms of the the grade and that type of thing um in terms of the ability of of you all to Grant a an exception or a waiver here um 10 b-129 does provide that and it does say that um the the planning board shall have the power to Grant such exceptions from the requirements of subdivision or site plan approval as may be reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of the provisions of this chapter or subdivision or site plan review and approval if the literal enforcement of one or more such Provisions is impracticable or will exact undo hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question so this is not only do we have an an undue hardship here but the the lot itself and I think Derek and Dan and Justin could even talk to it like it's a tough lot there on Great Road too in terms of installing a u a sidewalk and it would be really expensive to inst install a sidewalk there so again in support of the request um thank you thanks Mr Casey and could I just following up is it possible Jerry that we could um impose this as a condition of a future purchaser of of one or both of those sites I mean I would feel far more comfortable with that that that's something I could definitely get on board with if they if they um since are buting the Great Road um but Justin under what circumstances would somebody have to come back in for a site plan improval uh if someone were to build a house on 3.01 then perhaps that would apply but the remaining portion are about you know half of that uh probably a little more than half of the linear distance on Great Road uh is theems so you know I don't think they'll they would be coming in for anything else yeah and I I think it's an open question as to whether the board can require an inlo payment uh for a sidewalk which is not on their side of the street a bike path and and pedestrian path when it's not on their side of the street um I understand and somebody pointed out right I guess it was uh Louise rightfully that uh it's a tricky Road and uh people on both sides of the street are going to be do do use that path on the east side the the portions of the path that's there yeah okay um thank you uh Mr Casey do you have any other um testimony to present I do not um are there any other question miss pearlmutter you have a question you're on mute um I'd like to shift gears a little bit um it was mentioned that uh there's a driveway and that uh in order to move it they would replace some they would be tearing down some trees can somebody address what's actually being taken down how much is how many trees are being taken down is it possible to is there a landscaping plan is it possible to move the driveway so the fewer trees are taken down and less uh impact on the environment thanks for that question um Mr ruine can you speak to the design for the for the re built reoriented um driveway and whether what what the impact on the trees is there certainly Madam chair um so the proposed relocation of the driveway in this portion of the property which is going to be the area to the west of prop lot 3.02 that area is almost entirely wooded and the simplest route to reconstruct the driveway will be a straight line from Dres Corner Road intersecting the existing driveway regardless of which direction we move the driveway be it to the east or to the right there are trees in that area that's going to be impacted what we looked at is how can we what location would create the least amount of impervious coverage have the least amount of runoff and likewise creates the least amount of potential construction cost for the applicant and all of those L us essentially to a straight to a straight section of new driveway to connect to Drake Corner Road to the existing driveway that's going to minimize the amount of the land disturbance it's going to minimize the amount of impervious coverage that we're creating and we do believe given the fact that almost this entire area is wooded that it's going to minimize the amount of trees that would have to be removed the applicant has located all of the trees that we anticipate requiring removal on the property and they've been made a part of the plan set um but as Mr Casey indicated right now there is no plan to reconstruct that driveway if law 3.02 is preserved then the driveway as it currently exists right now will remain um okay do you happen to have that um sheet as part of this is it further along in this um in this uh set of sheets that you're showing right now sheet number four shows all of the locate all of the trees I don't think we're looking at sheet number four right now no that is sheet number I believe that's sheet number three in the plan set should we be looking at this yeah I would like to see uh I I would like to just take a quick look um and but I would also be comfortable um with a requirement that if they relocate the driveway um they uh consult with our Arbor um in in case you know by making a small Bend in the road or otherwise a small adjustment that doesn't uh increase costs a lot um they can um you know avoid a particularly important tree or something like that yeah I don't know I don't know that I have that sheet Eric um okay but but I also know in talking to to Justin I think he mentioned yesterday at um at site plan that um before the installation of the driveway if it ever happens um hopefully it doesn't happen um that shade tree would have to be involved in it so there would be okay an administrative review of it uh Justin can confirm that with me but I'm pretty certain that's what he said yesterday it's actually oops it's the landscape committee not not the shade tree uh yeah a condition could be to uh have review of that tree plan uh by either staff or the landscape subcommittee I would I would say by um Mr Sapar and the landscape subcommittee okay Mr Cohen and then Carrie you've got your hand up go ahead David yeah I just um wanted to make sure that we had addressed all of the possible waivers that Mr Weissman mentioned I don't recall us discussing the uh requirement to reconstruct the roadway uh to the center of the road for the the abing roadways and um I just I want to make sure that gets discussed as well right yeah I just wanted to mention to Jerry I don't believe that we entered the um slide from the applicant into as an exhibit yeah let's do that so that was a slide um is that part of the plan set it was it was the first sheet of the plan set yeah I don't think we need to Market a separate exhibit then is so identified so Carrie were you saying that we did not identify an A1 or a second one or are you the one the one sheet that we uh referenced the entire meeting by the applicant I didn't think that was as an that I thought it was an exhibit but no it's part of the set so it does not have to be an exhibit so my error okay thanks keeping us all honest um so to Mr Cohen's point the requirement that um Princeton Academy Recon construct the existing roadway to the um Center Line I have waiver written next to that or did did you already indicate Mr Casey that you're asking for a waiver for that or did I put that word in the wrong place no I love I think you put it in a great spot no I mean to no I'm sorry it was it was for the one below it my note below it on the line which what to do with sidewalks and bike baths so you're asking for a waiver here as well yeah I mean unless it can be made part of a condition of approval for you know further construction since nothing is proposed right now um they're going to be you know they're going to be sitting vacant right um they're just going to be paper Lots at this point I would ask that if we're able to pass that on to whoever finally develops that lot that would be terrific so pass along to the buyer developer of lot what's the lot again 3.0 that's going to be 3.01 01 okay yeah I think Jerry could just put that right in well like right in his resolution so that would be yeah that would work for us right so it would be kind of of an interim waiver then um and then that that would end when you sold a lot and um maybe just when you sold a lot uh just a clarifying question so the buyer of lot 3.01 is building the whole half of the road for all of the frontage within the subdivision now or just within their Frontage I would think it would just be within their Frontage I hope it's just within our Frontage I don't see how we can impose it upon H that one new lot owner assuming that happens of this and this relates to 3.01 and 3.02 both those are both the New Lots right yeah but logistically I I mean I don't know if Mr weissman's here and has better words for this but we're going to have someone widen in and reconstruct a part of a road then it's going to go back to what it was you know both before and after um Mr wisman can you can you speak again to the current condition of the road and if this widening were required of the purchaser of the residential lots purchasers potentially 3.01 and 3.02 if 3.02 is developed um how that section of Road would differ from what's there right now both both uh Great Road and Drake's Corner Road meet the spatial standards set in the master plan so there wouldn't there wouldn't necessarily be a widening of the road it would uh it would essentially be a repave um just in front of the lot so you'd have you could have a a portion of of the roadway if if this were to go this way you'd only have a two or 300 foot portion of a roadway that's repaved and then either side of that would would remain as is as is okay thanks uh Mr Cohen yeah I I just want to um support this waiver actually just as a as a waiver and not as a condition that some future okay uh purchaser be required to do it I think the reason for this requirement in our subdivision ordinance is with the expectation that when you do a subdivision there's a lot of construction there are a lot of utility connections that happen into the right of way and you want to bring the road back to a good condition after all that work has happened since none of that is anticipated here um except for maybe I think the sewer connection to 3.01 uh in the Great Road you know I I don't think that we need to make this requirement I think this is intended for other types of subdivisions yeah thank you but I other question on the record that we considered it and and we have a good reason yes agreed um other questions from board members for the applicant before we go to public comment if I could just clarify one one point too um so we have been in discussions to sell or to to enter a relationship with the rid view Conservancy for example right and the idea would be that everything stays the same right there's the road doesn't change you would never even know um I just want to make sure that in the event that that happens that there that I'm not missing something that's going to trigger a Improvement a sight Improvement to Drake's Corner Road and I I think the answer to that is no because of what we just talked about but I just want to make sure so that because that would be prohibitively expensive for someone like Ridge viw Conservancy to take on right I mean my assumption and I and I gather from seeing Mr Cohen's slight headshake that it's s to and and I'm interested in what other members think that if these either of these properties are sold purely for preservation and no development at all then the purchaser would be relieved of uh these Improvement requirements I I don't think that's what David was suggesting I was that not what you were suggesting I proposed just granting the waiver we had some discussion about making it a condition that they would have to do these improvements if it was if there was a future purchaser but I was advocating not to do that and just even for the even for the multi-use pathway I thought you were advocating not do it for the road impr for the road repaving right I was for the road repaving that's right right um okay so if so if someone does come along who's G to deed restrict these lots and conserve and put them in a conservation easement for example they're still going to have a requirement to make a road Improvement no I no no they will not David was just proposing going even I that that I think we I'm assuming could all get on board with but I think David was proposing going even farther right David you were basically saying um even if someone did purchase the property and was going to develop it that you were okay with leaving relieving them of this obligation is that what you right so 3.02 if it doesn't go ahead with the reie Conservancy they're still not as I understand it their sewer connection is going to be through an easement through the uh the academy property it's not going to be there is no sewer to connect to in Drake's Corner Road so they're not going to be disturbing the pavement and my understanding of this requirement to repave the road has to do with damage to the road during construction so I I am yes I'm going further and I'm saying that should just be a waiver for a waiver entirely for this requirement of repaving half of the roadway on both the Great Road and Drake's Corner Road right and not not to be difficult but conceivably there could be other other reasons why if someone were to purchase the lot and and and develop the lot that they could disturb the payement if they're in despite the intention of the ordinance David so I'll let down speak to that we do have requirements for restoration of pavement yeah even for a single family I think so it's the question is whether we would need to impose that here or whether that just goes with as part of our Municipal requirement right right and uh you're absolutely right uh if there's other utilities that would Connect into Drake's corner or Great Road uh be it water electric Communications gas um any work in the public RightWay does require a permit to excavate and occupy the RightWay um part of that permit is a bond for the restoration of the roadway um and the roadway must be reconstructed for the trenches that were excavated into the roadway um per the municipal design standards and if they're not then then that's what the the bond that's held for is is is held to make any repairs that are not satisfactory okay just a clarification on my own behalf um it's negotiations with richu Conservancy with lot 3.01 I thought that's what it was but maybe is it 3.02 3.02 3.02 I thank you which is the one on um's Corner Road Drake's Corner yeah right where the the secondary driveway is so again I don't want to I feel like I might put my foot foot my mouth here at some point and I apologize I I appreciate your patience but in so if someone purchases lot 3.01 on the Great Road and they are not going to develop it and it's going to be in Conservancy what is the outcome of payment towards the sidewalk yeah but there's no if nothing is planned for development I think the Board needs to I I think that's maybe the next item the board was going to discuss it but it has to address that obviously okay board member opinions so but just closing the loop on the repaving are we going I mean it's functionally the same what David is proposing the waiver and you know but can we just where are we Landing with that so my understanding is that um I mean are we doing a waiver or we B yeah yes we're uh we would put a waiver in there yes okay unless somebody objects you know yes we can hear from other board members right I mean yeah I think I think we should Grant the waiver yeah um so the sidewalk question is this the original the sidewalk that we were talking about before this or we on to something new now we were talking about it before yeah the question of the multi-use pathway um on the west side of Great Road along the frontage of the new line lot along the east side of 01 oh the West I'm sorry I thought we were talking about the multi-use path on the other side well whatever well we're talking about the multi-use path but I thought that it had been made clear that um uh it would be a stretch for this board to justify well if the if the purchaser of the if we're talking about um imposing a requirement on a future purchaser and they were willing to make a payment in lie that could be used across the street then potentially there could be a you know an amount negotiated with the town for um X number of feet of multi-use pathway that's equal to the frontage on the west side but that that is the that is the question be before us now as I understand it Miss Nuka um on that question of uh the shared use path or sidewalk on Great Road could the staff clarify exactly what the um master plan calls for in terms of proposed Improvement on that stretch of Great Road I don't I don't believe the master plan calls for anything directly in terms of what it's going to look like but it does mention mention it as part of the proposed uh sidewalk network uh as well as the proposed under the um I'm blanking on the terms right now the the bicycle plan that's where it mentions the shared uh path and just I'm sorry I'm sorry so if if this subdivision was um a commercial subdivision then the developer would be required to install shared use path or sidewalk on the west side of Great Road or on the east side to match up with what's there uh if if it were a commercial anyone is held to the same standard um you know they could do the same provide the inlo or ask for a waiver uh but generally they might you know seek to install it if they were going to you know say add better connectivity to a subdivision with inside uh inside the interior of the lot um it it seems like improving accessibility along this stretch of road is something that the town would like to see happen um and that members of the planning board would like to see happen um and I guess I'm just hesitant about uh allowing a waiver on this um because of financial hardship just also because of the precedent that sets well the other the other issue that the board has to address is um Can can the board re require that a inl payment be made not for a path adjacent to the property but across the street it's a bit of a stretch but you did why are we discussing it I'm I'm just confused like if Jerry if you said that it's a stretch what why why are we discussing it well that's just my my view I mean you could make we're discussing a requirement for the for the West Side assuming the bike master plan assuming the bike and ped um plan that is an appendix to the master plan shows a multi-use path on the west side my understanding is that we can it does not you're saying David well what I understood again from Justin is that the it calls for a multi-use bidirectional path along this stretch of road it is not it does not specify which side it should be on and so there's every you know it's even possible that while the existing path is on the east side that there would be a suggestion that it cross sides of the road at some point and that it be on the on the West Side along this stretch we just don't know does anybody have any idea how much money we talking about I don't I don't either a lot a little or I mean it's a thousand feet and you know I wouldn't be surprised if the minimum cost would be 20 or $30 a linear foot probably could be even more than that so I Dan am I crazy I I don't know what no I it's hard to pin down right there's there's C circumstances that you know clearing removals things like that um a th000 feet 8 feet wide if it were $10 a square foot uh or $12 a square foot you're talking almost $100,000 just wanted some order of magnitude idea I don't know whe they talking about $5,000 $100,000 you know and that's without the engineering behind it and it's it's really steep there too so um yeah this is it's it's frustrating because both sides of the street um along that stretch are are tough to work with because of the grade because of the woods the grade on the West Side the woods on the or the woods on the east side um you know my my frustration is that we we can't solve this tonight um and uh what I mean I know that we're we need to make a decision tonight um I just wish we had a little more clarity on what the real you know options were and where a um a a pathway multi-use pathway would be built if we were to connect the one that already exists all the way uh you know further south on on great road all the way up to Cherry Valley but we don't have that level of certainty and um I guess I'm just stating the obvious but it's part of what makes this frustrating um Mr odonnell thank you I'm just trying to get this straight in my own head so we can either or our options are we can grant a waiver based on financial hardship in which case no work no D you're shaking your head I I'm not sure that I mean the Mr Casey read off the statute and I think it kind of excluded financial hardship it it described what kinds of hardship could be relevant and it did not list financial hardship it said what I heard is the waiver request must be reasonable it must to apply to to a specific property and there needs to be a practical Andor a practical hardship which to to me could okay be any number of things it could be you know we can on the land and it could be based on financi but but there is no specific financial hardship rational all right sure is it possible that we can and I think I heard this quoted before we can make a condition for a future buyer of the property that they would have to then either construct the pathway or make a payment in Li of construction is that possible Mr meller yes I think it is oh okay that's a simple answer uh Mr Casey did you want to say I mean I I would object to that as well because ultimately the finances behind it make a lot less marketable then if you're going to tell someone who's going to buy that that they're going to have to pay $200,000 to install a sidewalk that's a that's a deal breaker um given the condition of that current lot right do we already have have we already granted a right of way across the front of 1128 to Princeton because we'd be willing to do that in Li of any you know money oblig future money obligation by anybody who who's going to be there so you'd have the ability to build a sidewalk there and and I probably is a simple answer you might already have the right of way I just don't know that would be a middle ground perhaps to say in lie of having us construct a sidewalk that's going to cost a whole lot of money we would meet you halfway and give you a right of way to allow you to construct a sidewalk at some point uh Mr wisman yeah the right the right away along great load Road in that portion uh meets the minimum required barries between 55 and 60 feet which is uh what's required for a secondary arterial but is with the with the placement of the cart way within that right of way is there room within the right of way to build a shared use path alongside the road I guess is because if there's not then we might even though it meets the standard we might need more right away if we wanted to build it uh the roadway and shoulders uh total approximately 28 ft um so that would leave uh significant each yeah okay and that already exists that's not something that the applicant is [Music] um giving up or tonight right right right well um or or can we cap Our obligation now if it you know if if it's not going to be a waiver or whatever and if we say that whoever does buy this has to a a $50,000 payment in lie of installation of something I'm just trying to cap our exposure here uh understood Mr Mueller is a is a requirement of that kind within our jurisdiction I I I think so I mean you know the real problem is we don't have hard data but um that seems my reaction to that is that it's reasonable but uh I don't know how theard members feel okay um Miss saxs yeah I just hope that in the future when staff make recommendations for things conditions that they think we should impose that they come with all the requisite information that we would need to make that decision and including you know is this the 2016 bike master plan is it the most recent master plan what is the legal framework in which we' impose this because um you know this them like a relatively simple application and now we spent all this time on you know speculating about uh as you know trying to make a decision based on incomplete and in inadequate information um and I also just wanted to re reiterate what I started with which is you know for those who don't know and I don't have any children who attended this school um but I know that this was a very special school and that almost went under and that there was enormous Community effort that saved them and and we're very fortunate to still have them and I know they're still struggling and yes we you know had we lost them um the alternative would have been most likely a big developer who could afford all the things that we want but um I'm glad that we have this school and it's part of the many amazing schools like this that um contribute to the the educational texture and quality and character of our town and I think that we should be supporting them and not um you know basically side going sideways and this entire uh uh application on a path based on hypotheticals that might occur in the future and I am an avid biker and I I I um you know as anyone who knows me I'm a strong advocate of bike paths but I also I just I think cont context and balance and in terms of how we make this these decisions is is crucial and keeping in mind who the applicant is and how we can be supportive um leave it at that yeah I take your point and I think you've laid out the rationale for exceptional circumstances that make it a reasonable request so um I do want to hear from we have two board hands up and then if there are no other comments I really want to hear from the public so Mr bodimer and then miss capazo yeah I'll keep it short I agree with council member sax thank you Julie I just wanted to say the same thing I think it's an ideal use of the site I think destroying the existing structures and losing a lot of those woods would be extremely uh detrimental to the community so yeah as much as we could do to support the existing use I think is a smart way to go all right thank you thanks you both for for weighing in [Music] um seeing no other board comments right now I want to open up the meeting for public comments so there are now 43 members of the public who are um attending if you wish to um address the board and one person's already being brought over c bar um now is the time to raise your if you if you want to talk to the board about this application Now's the Time to raise your hand and uh we'll bring people over into the participant room in the order in which hands are raised um so I'm not seeing any other hands go up so I'm I'm saying again if you want to speak to this application raise your hand now and will be brought over in order um c bar can you activate your camera please and there you go welcome well thank you uh Mr Mueller will swear you in and then you'll have your three minutes do you swear or for the testimony about to give will be the truth yes I do so one firm could you please St your full name and spell your last name my name is Christopher bar and my last name is spelled b a r r and I'm the U uh director of uh Ridge viw Conservancy which as Mr Casey mentioned earlier um we've been in uh discussions uh with the school for many months now and and maybe before I get into uh the rest of my statement I would also like to say that we very much agree with the comments made by councilwoman sax you know I think like everybody in the community we were shocked and saddened when we heard uh several months ago that the school uh uh may be closing at the end of the school year and um we could see that the uh if a developer were to come in and by the property that it would significantly transform the property and disrupt it not to mention you know an important institution in our community um uh no longer being around so uh we're very very pleased um that the school uh has found a plan um to move forward and to remain uh to remain in operation and uh we are extremely enthused and optimistic that the school has um invited us into a discussion about partnering on conservation of uh of uh portions of their property from our perspective there's a real opportunity here for a big win-win and uh you know from a conservation perspective uh this is important for several reasons you one is that the Princeton Ridge is an environmentally sensitive habitat and um uh any development uh right now uh in the Princeton Ridge will affect that habitat uh the school is located just up slope from uh the headwaters of Mountain Brook and efforts have gone into preserving uh those Headwaters so any further impervious surface there could affect that um it also you know this is the view shed for the northern gateway to Princeton along the Great Road and finally you know as someone mentioned earlier the school is a historic property and it's there's been discussion about its eligibility for the New Jersey and National registers of historic property and so our interest is really to work with the school and with the uh Community to uh help the school um obtain the funds that it needs to uh continue operating and to keep its property intact so that we're you know they're able to pass it off you know pass it on to Future Generations um the school is also located on Princeton's Emerald necklace and uh it's an an important linkage uh property between uh the uh 153 acre Province line Woods which you know significant uh bandwidth and resources uh were mobilized to conserve that in recent years as well as the Ridge View Woods uh which is just to the east um and uh and uh points Beyond so thank you very much for uh considering the School's application and as I said we're very enthused and optimistic to be partnering with the school and we hope we can uh reach an agreement there thank you Mr bar thank you um so I'm not seeing any other hands uh raised to comment on this application so I'll close the uh public um comment portion of the meeting for now and um interested in any any final thoughts from board members [Music] um including perhaps a um a motion uh with suggested um conditions Mr meller yeah I wonder Derek can you just again advise the board on the the question of the Dugout and part of the base field and what's been proposed by what was proposed by Mr Casey and your reaction to that I'm not sure what Mr Casey's proposal was well he was talking about getting some if if the lot is sold um I guess even if it's not sold uh it would be subdivided and would be subject to the R A or B standards well I think as long as it's under common ownership the the the baseball field can exist under the conditional use authorization that already exists for this okay this the school yeah um if it is sold I think they would need to lease it and they need to come back and get conditional use authorization for it um you know our concern is with subdivisions you want to kind of clean up you know the issues before it's uh it's subdivided um so that's that was our intent with that bringing that condition to the uh the board's attention but okay so Mr I'm sorry go ahead d i just was going to say I would be interested to see what uh Mr Casey has to has to offer on that yeah because one point earlier and Bob jump in yeah he had suggested maybe some kind of easement and maybe four but go ahead Bob yeah I talked to Derek about it yesterday actually and and given the the current zoning um he's right I I I think technically he's right that we would have to if we wanted to use that portion or enter into an agreement with a new owner of that property in title changed hands we remarkably would have to come back the zoning board and get a a use variance for uh that portion of the property that would be a Dugout um I mean it's it's cumbersome to think of but I think that uh the technical reading of it by Derek is correct but Derek you weren't suggesting they come back to the zoning board they can come back to us correct to get conditional use you could have a conditional use they'd have to have some ownership of the land in the form of a lease or something like that um I mean then would be part of their property under their control but uh yeah we don't want to take the baseball away from the kids but it's just like it's a hanging item out there and yeah yeah no address it I thank you thank you Mr leco uh yes I have a similar kind of clarification question about the uh driveway moving onto Drake's Corner Road uh it's been presented on the application uh on the site plan that the road will be moved uh what I heard tonight is maybe maybe not um depending on if it goes to uh if it's preserved by an outside group so I just want to make sure that the board before we get into conditions or the applicant uh we square away that there could be a condition that I'd imagine the board doesn't want to see that change if it doesn't have to and thus the trees wouldn't be taken down um but at the same time you know just that's clear versus what's shown on the plan right now of it's being moved if it's not uh being developed right I thought where we landed on that is that if the driveway is relocated um they'll need to come they'll need to get um a review by the arborist or and by the landscape subcommittee um and our understanding is that if the land is preserved the driveway will not be relocated and perhaps a note could just be added to the drawing indicating that that's part of the compliance plan I guess there's a compliance plan for a subdivision as well as for a site plan or I I mean it's a minor site plan so they need the compliance plan anyway so maybe they can just make that note that the road will only be relocated if the um lot is sold for purposes of development I like that okay would someone like to make a motion Miss I'll make a motion uh Jerry you're gonna have to fill in the fill in the blanks there yeah yeah well it would be for um preliminary and final major site plan a subdivision approval and I guess minor site plan approval also or there Justin minus plan approval also yes yes it's yes okay with um with waivers and conditions and let me go through them um before we do though I just wanted to ask about the relocation of the utilities if a deal is worked out with Ru conservancy and the road is not relocated will the utilities stay where they are yes okay um so the waivers uh there'll be waivers from um Road dedication on on Drake's Corner reconstruction of existing roads abing the property that would be both Drake's corner and um uh Great Road uh and sidewalk and bike pass on on the Great Road either construct or payment in little waivers from all of that uh then there's one we just talked about pass should be is in negotiations with RW conservancy and if that is reaches for the road will stay where it they are it is and the utilities as well [Music] um just bear with me if the um driveway is relocated to be subject to review by the arborist and Landscape committee as Miss Wilson just referred to a few minutes ago um if the baseball field lot is so what lot is that 3.01 right uh andh wants to continue um keeping the the part of the baseball field and The Dugout which is that lot they'll have to lease from um the owner of 3.01 and secure a um conditional use authorization from the planning board don't moved um I I was gonna let me get a second before before I thank you Nat Mr Lesco uh just a quick question uh should it be conditioned on Ridge View Conservancy or open space preservation uh if that were to fall through and another group could do it I wouldn't want the board to have to come back or the applicant to come back for the same result that's that's a good feeling yes yes please thanks Johson Mr Weissman I'm not understand oh he he's saying that the preservation the language about land preservation should not be specific to Ridge View Conservancy but rather to preservation by a isn't this condition related to the um related to the baseball field isn't that what we're talking about uh I was going back a little earlier oh okay yeah it's a it's a driveway we'll stay where it is and I had talked about if the negotiations with um review Conservancy reach fruition and Justin appropriately said or if it's another open space organization as well I mean my feeling is the I I had proposed some language for that Jerry uh the road only will be relocated in the event the lot is sold for purposes of development oh okay so whether it's preserved or they retain ownership or whatever the road will not be moved okay unless 3.02 is sold for the purpose of development oh yes that's good David yeah that's good Mr Weissman uh I just wanted to clarify the uh Mr Mueller the the waiver for the dedication of right away I thought the applicant had indicated that they are uh amable to dedicating the right away Along Drake's Corner Road oh okay so waiver no wer no W yeah I I guess I had thought there was no waiver needed for that that's fine but was certainly no need to Grant a waiver for that and that'll be a condition then yes they'll make the dedication then I wanted to go and I know we have still another item to cover and it's starting to get like um let me just if I may just go through the um the reports then there's minor CH checklist item waivers um okay the applicant shall provide a true replacement plan uh that'll be a condition um but that's subject to review of the arist and the uh landscape architect landscape subcommittee I'm sorry landscape subcommittee again that's only if there is development though on that lot correct only if the driveway is relocated which would only happen if the lot is developed yeah right um and then I'm now on Section 4.0 of uh Dan and Derek's memo applicant shall provide a valid njd freshwater Wellness perit of inter interpretation for the entire tract prant to proceeding with any develop development um Bob do you have any reaction to that it seems something the board certainly is authorized to and I think should uh just jump jump in if if you have any issues um the applicant shall provide a steep slope analysis of proposal at 3.01 to determine if any slopes are in excess of the minimum 25% slope for single family residential development and that would be for people who are going to develop the property yes future development I would say well I think this was a request that the steep slope analysis be done as part of the compliance plan I mean it's not hard to do you already have the topographic information don't you Mr rup rup nine yes we do have topography on the property uh throughout the entire lot so we I even see some steep slope analysis in some portions already we have shown the slopes over 15% but it wasn't broken out to 15 to 25 and 25 and above okay and then we'll put in of course that it's a um site development classified as minor development and then there's the standard stuff about pin um the property Corners the N the new designation of the Lots subdivision plate be provided to engineering department digital form deed documents approved by me before filing with the mercil county clerk applicant shall comply with comments of the municipality's land surveying consultant review letter was there such a letter I didn't see it which letter do you mean I'm sorry I didn't follow you the applicant shall comply with the comments of municipalities land surveying consultant review letter I didn't see such a letter yeah I I've got it Mr sanduski prepared it oh and you have Bob I do indeed I think Eric probably has he has it and he agrees yes and if you can get that a copy of that to me that'd be great sure construction Court estimates following approvals may be necessary mer County planning board and M County Soil Conservation District Delaware and RAR and Canal commission and that's it can we can we do just one one add- on I'm sorry um sure in the event the same sort of uh deal that we have with lot 3.02 on Drake's Corner relative to 3.01 on Great Road in the event that property is sold to someone who agrees not to develop it can we agree that we don't have to come back and get a conditional use permission to keep our Dugout in baseball field where it is and that's on 3.02 that would be on lot 3.0 1 oh on Great Road where the baseball field is what would you need a conditional use authorization for 3.02 for now I'm saying so just like Mr Cohen had said um we want we're not going to move the driveway if someone who buys it is someone like the ridge Conservancy or going to preserve it I would just ask that that same condition be imposed on proposed lot 3.01 that because it would maybe change title to someone like Green Acres or whoever it might be to someone who agrees to deed restrict it and not develop it but is okay with us having our baseball field that remain there I just don't I'm just trying to save us from coming back for something oh I see on our baseball field and that's that makes sense yeah that's 3.01 that's 3.01 yeah okay um I mean anybody who purchases that is going to require you know I I I don't know what but you're not but you're going to have to enter into some kind of agreement if you continue to use open space you know part oh sure part of an open space lot for a baseball field yeah I mean there would be at least there would be there would be Insurance all those types of things for sure but there would be no development no building on that lot is the is what differentiates it so that what Derek was saying that if we sell it to Joe Smith and he has a deed in Joe Smith and we wanted to do that we would have to come back and get a conditional use approval for that what I'm proposing is if it stays with the Ridge View or Green Acres or whoever it is or someone who agrees to deed restricted from development and allows us right to you keep our baseball field where it is and that would be a third party transaction like between us in terms of a lease or something but do we still have to come back it's expensive to do that can you jump in on that um well I mean yeah I'm glad you Jerry thank you um I mean the conditional use was authorization was granted to Sacred Heart so once you sell it I think it goes away unfortunately I agree but that's why I'm asking for it just well I mean just saves us a trip is all if nothing's the status quo it's status quo it just happens to be in the name of a not another nonprofit for non-development we would have to expend the resources to come back and get a conditional use variance that trigger a return to the board though Mr Bridger I I think it does I mean the additional use was granted to pass unfortunately if Mr Smith buys it and wants to keep it as as it is now I think he would have to come in you'd have to lease it and I I mean I un unless Jerry has a a Secret Rabbit he can pull out of the hat I don't see any other way but yeah I I have to I think Dereck is right on this one um I I think it's unavoidable because at that point it's just um a use which is not permitted in the uh in the zone and um they haven't P hasn't gotten any authorization to to permit it that's the whole conditional use idea and that's not something we can we can um right it's not Grant Mr Casey yeah and it's not a variance Bob it's just conditional use authorization but we'll make it as painless as possible yeah much easier than this much easier than this hearing so we we have a motion and a second and Jerry has laid out all of the conditions um are we ready to vote I think we are and the waivers I'm Sor motion Mr uh I did I'm sorry Mr bodimer did thank thank you yeah uh Mr bodimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr Cohen yes Mr Macwan yes Miss Nuka yes Mr ronell yes Miss pearlmutter yes Miss Sachs yes Mrs Wilson yes motion carried all in favor okay very much thank you Mr Casey thank you Mr thank you Mr rup narain um uh we have another application before us tonight I'm gonna propose that we take a break now instead of uh waiting 30 minutes and then taking a break uh so it's 8:51 let's reconvene uh at 9 or 901 okay 10 minutes thank you um thanks everybody see you soon the video please um next up we have an application from estate Shore LLC this is a minor subdivision with variances at 479 Jefferson Road Block 548 lot one and this is file number p2323 d403 Ms um we have right now 37 attendees um uh in the attendees room and um just FYI um Mr Lesco do you want to open things up here uh certainly and first I'd ask Jerry uh raise your right hand well but about the notice and and jurisdiction oh I'm sorry yes can you speak to notice and proper proper notice and jurisdiction please Jerry yes notice is proper and surface is proper and the board has jurisdiction thank you Justin for keeping me between the ditches you swear our affirmed testimony about to give be the truth yes I do so that's one of affirmed um I guess um Dan and Derek here as well yeah that's a good idea Dan and Derek everybody you guys hear can you get sworn in now yeah do you swear or affirming the testimony about to give be the truth I do I do so want to affirmed great uh thank you madam chair and I would like to start by sharing my screen again and I believe you could see that now um so once again I'd like to uh utilize the NJ partial Explorer publicly available from Rowan University uh to orient everyone to the site uh the subject parcel is 479 Jefferson on the corner of Kyler Road and Jefferson Road it is currently a0 46 acre lot in the r six zone of the former Township and before I keep going Jerry is this exhibit pb1 y pb1 okay great um uh so like I said it's currently a0 46 acre lot in the r six zone of the former Township on it is a 1200q foot 1story residential dwelling built in 1955 uh with a driveway access off Kyler uh there are also sidewalks existing on Jefferson but not on Kyler and the partial is not within any designated local state or National Historic districts uh the applicant proposes to subdivide the lot into 2.23 acre lots uh with the suggestion to construct a single family detached home on each lot and the homes uh that were proposed are shown to front on Kyler uh the applicant is requesting variances for minimum lot size where 0.25 acres is required again that's compared to the proposed 0.23 Acres on each uh and additionally the applicant is requesting a variance from the prevailing front yard setback requirement on Jefferson Road of 47 feet uh the proposed corner lot uh W uh is considered to have two front yard setbacks so one on Jefferson and one on Kyler with the related uh prevailing front yard setbacks uh on each uh on each street so again I'll hold my comments until after the applicants presentation and uh as you all know uh Derek and Dan are here uh they also have the their memo with a variety of comments thank you thank you Justin um uh so Derek and Dan is there anything that you want to bring to our attention before we hear from the applicant anything of particular note uh not at this time okay thank you um Mr Kennedy thank you madam chair um Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee just down Princeton bike um thank you all um members of the board and staff and members of the public for hearing us tonight um as uh your planning director indicated this is a minor subdivision request for the property at 479 Jefferson um you know essentially it does split it in half into two lots that are that we hope you'll see from the exhibits and testimony we have are um conforming in every way except for lot area and and very closely conforming in lot area um and similar to uh and larger than um and more conforming than many of the Lots uh on our side of the street um as as we'll show you um one thing from the outset uh you we got the uh uh staff memos uh last week um you know we we did see and hear the concern about the prevailing set back along uh Jefferson uh honestly we think that's a was a very good comment and concern and we'll show you um um as an exhibit um but essentially stipulate to you that we're prepared to and there is plenty of room uh to respect that setback and and not seek that VAR so the I'll tell you at the um you know at the outset uh that the applicant will will not need uh and while we noticed for it uh again when we got the uh staff reports we essentially agreed with them and took another look at that and you know in preparing for this um are prepared to uh move forward uh without um setback variance uh relief along um along Jefferson um we'll have uh likely two witnesses tonight we've got someone who it's been minutes since you've heard from but our engineer um Eric is still on from the prior uh hearing um and then our planning expert uh Susan I believe is on as well um so uh uh with that perhaps we could um swear them both in um maybe for the second time tonight or for the first uh in in our planner's case sure can you raise your right hand sorry do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give me the truth yes I do yes yes I do soer please set your full name and spell your last name Eric rarin rup na r a i n good thank you and I am Barbara alen my last name is e as an Edward hle en thank you thank you both and bar with apologies I'm not sure where I got Susan from it's one of those uh when you start at nine o'clock hopefully that's the only mistake I make tonight um uh so uh with that as we normally do we have a set of I believe 11 slides if it's uh um well actually before that um while I believe he may have recently been accepted as an expert um Madam chair if you'd like us to repeat that process um Eric want to with with your credentials I know they were very recently accepted yeah but he has to go you have to go through the drill again as you know all right ER you could certainly um I'm a licensed professional engineer in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania I've been licensed in New Jersey since 2003 I received a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Villanova University in 1997 and in 2001 I received a masters from the same uh since graduating in 97 I've been practicing uh Land Development for both um residential developments and Commercial developments for both uh land developers and private homeowners I've testified in front of this board and in front of numerous other boards uh throughout New Jersey thank you Mr Ru nin we accept your qualifications um can we qualify um your planner to absolutely Barbara if you would like to um go through your credential um and I would love to um my name is Barbara alen I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an aicp I've worked with Beacon planning since 2008 and I've been licensed since 2015 I've worked my way up to principal I've been accepted throughout New Jersey uh before boards such as um Oceanport Long Branch Red Bank Carterette um currently we're serving as the board planners for the burough of Freehold and I have been accepted as expert in land use Planning by the New Jersey Superior Court we accept your qualifications thank you Miss aen thank you thank you m chair um uh if we could I'd like to share my screen we'll have one exhibit um uh to have marked I believe it is 11 uh slides to show here this evening know for those of you looking at the clock one of them is the introduction and one of them does say thank you so hopefully we can be efficient um uh Eric um if we could looking at slide two uh I want to start to orient uh the board um where we are you know what the blue arrow is looking at what the Zoning for this part of town is certainly uh so the blue arrow is pointing towards where the property is located the property that's subject of tonight's application and the property is located at the intersection of Jefferson and Kyler Road and the what's formly the township section of the of Princeton and the property is located at that corner which would be the northeasterly corner of the area so uh moving on to slide three this is kind of a a neighborhood area map anything you want to describe about the prevailing patterns here certainly um so the property currently contains an existing house and the driveway the driveway presently provides access to Kier Road there is no driveway access currently to Jefferson's to Jefferson Road from this particular property the house is located at approximately I would say the middle of the site and the middle towards I what would be the Westerly half of the property towards Jefferson Road um the driveway itself is located on the easterly side of the property um on that other half of the site thanks moving on uh this slide forus is oriented slightly differently U with I think Jefferson going left to right on the top and and um going to point out some of the those features on on this um this slide excuse me for interrupting but we did we identify this set of slides as exhibit A1 one yeah yes okay all right sorry about that go ahead so on this particular Slide the boundary of the property is highlighted in blue and what the board can see in the middle of that the property boundary is the existing dwelling that's on site towards the left of that blue line along Kyler road which is towards the left of the property on the left side um there are right now the driveway there's a couple of cars that the board might be able to see that's sparked in the driveway and that's the only parking presently on this property it does not contain any detached garage or any attached garage to the dwelling uh next slide here these are renderings of the the two homes that are proposed to to be built is that correct correct the applicant is proposing two two story dwellings one will one in each lot yeah Eric if you could name which slide it is by number as you go through them certainly so this is slide number five and it showed two the two dwellings that the applicant is uh looking to construct uh the dwelling that's shown on the left slide that would be the dwelling that we anticipate building on the what would be the new corner lot the dwelling to the right is the one that we anticipate building um on the easterly lot which is the lot that will front on Kyler Road only and and these reviews essentially would be if you're looking at the at the two homes from Kyler um kind of between the two this is what it might look like if the world was rendered by Photoshop correct all right um next on slide six uh this is the uh bulk table here um uh uh uh borrowed from combination of your plans I believe and and the uh reports uh from the municipal municipalities um staff and experts you want to take us through both the the variance condition that we are asking about and then we can talk a little bit about the the the setbacks certainly um so the project is located in the R6 Zone and within the R6 Zone the minimum lot area that's required is a quarter acre or approximately 10,890 square feet the existing lot is roughly 100 feet in depth um if measured perpendicular to Kyler and it's approximately 200 feet wide um along the frontage of Kyler the applicant's proposal to subdivide the lot into two newly created Lots will provide 10,000 ft for each lot which would be slightly less than what's required by the ordinance 10,000 square F feet is approxim approximately 23 acres and the ordinance requires 0.25 Acres so the applicant is seeking variances for both New Lots that are being created for the minimum lot area that's required outside of the minimum lot area variant the applicant anticipates complying with all of the other zoning criteria all of the other bulk zoning criteria that's required for the r six Zone um this particular exhibit shows and this is slide number six it shows that the applicant was seeking a variance for the mean prevailing front setback along Jefferson Road earlier today we reviewed the project with the applicant and what we're proposing to do is the dwelling that's located on the corner lot that dwelling will be shifted to the right in order to eliminate the need for that variance so the applicant anticipate complying with the mean prevailing front setback on Jeff Road thereby eliminating that variance two other will the building will that house be oriented toward Jefferson no the house will maintain the some same orientation that we have both house would essentially the fronts of the homes will be on Kyler um er before we leave this slide two other items um I think you have uh listed here 27% that would be the proportional floor area available to to lots of the size uh and other similar Lots in the neighborhood but the essentially the the the homes that are proposed were only 2500 squ feet or or 25% floor area is that correct correct all right and also um uh the imperious coverage shown on the plans that you had designed this is uh each lot would be at 30.5% um with the the orientation that is proposed correct uh next slide and we'll probably come back to this one with our planner but um this is you know a I believe a the slide seven is the tax map of our side of the street um and can you walk us through here from left to right what we're looking at and you know the kind of explain the conditions here of the the Lots on on this street um particularly in terms of the 85 foot width requirement and the quarter acre lot area requirement how we compare more or less certainly so again the blue arrow that's located on this slide to the the left of the screen that identifies the lot that's in question that's proposed for subdivision um this slide or this exhibit shows approximately where the new lot line will be created and essentially the arrow is pointing right down to where the lot line will be created our proposed Lots will be 100t by 100 ft which is 10,000 square feet if we were to move to to the left or towards the excuse me towards the right or towards the east along Kyler these are all of the existing lots that fronts on Kyler and these Lots most of which varies in sizes but the lot directly adjacent to us that's 32 Acres all of the other remaining lots are generally around. 22.23 acres in square footage those lots are slightly narrower than what we're proposing but they're also deeper in dep um the lot long Kyler currently they vary in width from 75 ft to 87 ft to 75 ft however the acreage of those lots are all roughly approximately 0.23 uh there are some lots that are a little larger but the vast majority of the lots are in that 0. 22.23 range and the red shaded lots are again on all our street all of them have some uh non-conforming condition whether it be uh with with and or lot are is that correct correct um next we're move to slide eight um uh this is a clip from your subdivision plan if you I'm ask if you could possibly do two things that wants here one you know talk about the features and and design of you know what is being proposed and then um if you could also talk about uh the discussion that was had that you know how we can slide things over essentially and and avoid um quite easily the request for a setback variance certainly um so this particular slide shows the two dwellings the garages and how we anticipate configuring the driveway the areas that are highlighted in Gray that's what was submitted as part of the original documentation that's in front of the board um the easterly most lot that lot is fully ConEd forming we don't anticipate any changes regarding that property where the house has been placed it complies with the prevailing front setb along Kyler and similarly the proposed attached garage that also complies with the bulk requirements for the garage the driveway on that particular property is about 15 1 12 ft from the easterly property line and again the ordinance requires a minimum of five so we are compliant with respect to all of the bulk zoning criteria for that lot the corner lot which is the one that has essentially the gray and the blues the gray is what was originally proposed and submitted and as the board can see uh the for the house on this particular property the house was located within the front prevailing setback what we discussed earlier today what the applicant is if there was a way for us to essentially eliminate the need for that variance and what showing is appro in the blue is approximately what we anticipate doing in order to eliminate the variant the house and the driveway both will be shifted to the east towards the right on the screen the driveway will be approximately 5 ft from the property line again that'll comply with the zoning ordinance and similarly the detached garage to the rear that will also be moved in an easterly direction towards the right so that the garage is about 5T off of the property line again compliant with the ordinance what that does it allows us to take the proposed dwelling and then also shift that further to the right or to the east by moving the dwelling the applicant is able to comply with the mean prevailing front setb along Jefferson Road and that's how we anticipate eliminating the need for that variance request um and Eric if we were not to get the variance as you know essentially since we are stipulating not to um but Shifting the house over um didn't fully work um what the applicant would have no other choice but to essentially redesign or build something slightly different um that did comply is that correct without that variance Rel there would be no ability to build in the front yard setback correct um there uh does the impact does shifting of that um driveway uh impact uh your your understanding of um the ability of these sites to support storm water mitigation or uh increase the ovious coverage um that uh that they would otherwise have no um if anything the impervious coverage based on the current layout that we have is going to be be slightly slightly reduced on the corner lot directly as a result of a slightly shorter walkway from the driveway to the front door other than that I believe we can comply fully with all of the other ordinance criteria uh thank you Eric um uh that will be our testimony from our our civil engineer um Madam chair I'm happy to to pause uh for for questions you might have for him uh thank you we have a question for Mr Cohen yeah I'm wondering if you can and um tell us what the increase in impervious coverage is from the existing to the proposed because I noticed in your table you know you didn't have an existing impervious you just um well I'll leave it at that so I'm I'm curious you know whether you fall into the category of a large development for relative to our storm water ordinance or a a small and how close you are to falling into the large category certainly um Mr con if you could bear with me for a moment I just want to flip through the plan sheets um because sheet number two in the set that's in front of the board that documents the existing site conditions with the total impervious coverage which is 2238 Square ft and that's for the existing dwelling the shed the driveway and the walkway that's located on the [Applause] property the proposed impervious coverage that we have 3047 the total proposed impervious coverage for the driveways to walkways both the dwellings and the garages will be 6,094 square feet um which is approximately 3856 square feet increase in impervious coverage under your ordinance anything over 5,000 square feet is considered a major development so this project will still be classified as a minor for storm water purposes thank you you're welcome um could you speak or or if if this is uh more appropriate for a different witness I'm happy to wait but I'm interested in I understand the both of these homes are intended to uh face Kyler um I think it's important that the um the facade that faces Jefferson also speak to Jefferson if you will you know maybe even have a pathway from the house to Jefferson in case people are coming from that direction on foot um can you just talk a little bit about um that facade and how it will relate to Jefferson I mean there was a testimony about basically two front yards maybe I'm paraphrasing improperly but two front yard setbacks and I'm just sort of thinking about the two front yard um orientation oh good good question I'll I'll I'll start and and and feel the few to to Eric on one hand I mean ultimately it is a home that's designed orienting in One Direction the Township's rules do have two front yards if you I think if you were to look uh up and down the the street um uh it might be hard to tell here but but but some of these other blots that are on the corner um they don't necessarily address both um uh but good point and and Eric one maybe we could if you have a quick way of of uh not me say not calculating but you know what the impact if of if there were to be a another second kind of um walkway you know towards Jefferson what that would be you know roughly in terms of um uh impervious coverage and and I'm sure the the applicant would be willing to uh to you know consider maybe aesthetic changes to to orient differently aesthetically uh the front of the home um maybe not to fully make it appear that that would be where one would enter or approach um you know there's some sensitivity uh about uh front door um appearance and allocation certainly um that you know you should while there are two front yards for setback purposes really it should only front to one one street but the appearance of that to make sure it's appropriate for um a street like Jefferson with that type of um setback is certainly something we would consider uh we may have a plan to to show up from the from a side profile but you know I think to to chairwoman's uh to your question it is you know designed as a side of a home not as a a second front right um I just think you could you know and this I guess would re would require architectural testimony and you don't have architectural testimony and I don't know the right um vernacular uh to but I think that it is you know important at the end of the day that there be um you know some attention to how the house relates to Jefferson thank you David for raising your hand and then Mia yeah I mean I I just want to support your point Louise um and perhaps even a little more strongly the current house does front on Jefferson um even though the driveway comes in off of Kyler and the pattern along Jefferson is that virtually every lot that faces Jefferson the residents fronts on Jefferson I mean it's a very strong pattern because Jefferson is the dominant Road and the other roads are side roads and so um yeah I think uh I think perhaps the house should do more than appear to front on Jefferson but should perhaps be redesigned to act actually front on Jefferson with the driveway presumably off of Kyler yeah yeah I mean and and our neighborhood character ordinance is very supportive on Corner Lots uh you know of driveways coming from one side while the the building faces another I think it's actually preferred okay thank you um Miss sax yeah I was gonna say exactly that I I I think it should front on Jefferson and I would like to hear the applicant explain if it why they they wouldn't have gone with that to begin with and um I think that would be a strongly preferable configuration given the importance of Jefferson Road and and all everything that uh dve it described sure Eric if you want to speak a few words on it you know the the the scale of the setbacks as to the two streets due um essentially compact a design that would be you know from this view left to right Jefferson and back their building envelope is smaller in that direction that doesn't necessarily mean impossible or different but that was the reason why it went this way Eric is is that fair to say why why that particular uh top to bottom building app envelope was preferred correct because the prevailing front set back from Jefferson is 47 feet and the prevailing front set back from Kyler is 32 and a half feet and given the lots are essentially Square Lots 100 by 100 the building envelope if the house fronts on Kyler the depth is it's a deeper envelope that allows the applicant to build within us compared to Jefferson which provides us with a shallower envelope and just so I understand um councilwoman sex the I think I'm hearing uh a preference for the the home itself to front um but under neighborhood character maybe not a preference but uh either an acceptance or even a preference that the driveway orientation remain almost as we've shown do I have that right from from Mr Cohen yeah strong preference for fronting and yes uh ex exactly as you described yes no thank you that is that is excellent or very helpful feedback and I understand the point that you were um that you were making Mr rupner rain but I you know maybe you could address that by you know changing the configuration of the driveway somewhat um shifting it and making it a shared driveway with the dwelling next door you know would shift it back some or to the to the east I I don't know I just I any number of ways that you can work with the site and Orient the house toward Jefferson Mr Cohen I I just also wanted to ask a question of Derek um I see that while the house is shown as being moved behind the prevailing front yard setback on Jefferson the deck continues to project uh past that setback and I'm not clear I know that we have some provision for porches to be able to project uh past the front setback but I I'm not clear that that's permitted for decks so if Derek could address that thank you David um it only permits it with regard to uh entrances of 4 foot setback or 4 foot uh encroachment into a setback so I think it would not apply here okay and and to Mr Cohen's Point um uh much appreciated this was uh in in hurried fashion meant to just show that we believe and you know absent varant relief would be complying not meant to show that we would extend a deck uh you know into that front yard there but uh I I did wait for Mr bridger's answer in case he had a different opinion I I I didn't expect he would but I thought I'd hear the answer first and would [Laughter] Jal all right uh Mr leco uh yes thank you madam chair and on that note I did uh want to advise the board uh that this is just a subdivision application uh and each parcel is for a single family home um so while I certainly don't doubt the word of our of the applicant or the attorneys it's not binding in the same way that a site plan application uh is binding that being said conditions can be put on an application so exactly yeah thank you um David yeah I just wanted to comment in relation to that point um before you got here Justin I mean we have had uh non-compliance subdivisions like this where we have required the floor plans to be provided as part of the um planning testimony essentially that's needed to decide whether to Grant the variance or not so I know it's not usually required for a simple subdivision but I think we're within our rights um to ask that floor plants that satisfy the board uh in terms of weighing the criteria for the variance should be a part of the application yeah certainly and I was referring a little more uh to the rendering as well right so just so I understand um what Mr Co say that the the request would be if if uh these redesign were to be acceptable that you would be looking for revised prior to um prior to approval uh you you would not be comfortable with approving based on a condition that we satisfy these things but you would want to see a redesign home um prior to approval I think because the changes we're talking about are significant enough um that that would be my preference again like to hear from other members of the board but uh thoughts from other members um Julie capoli uh yes I strongly agree that the frontage on Jefferson is significant also there um I don't know if we're going to get to public comment but a number of people have been waiting for a while so just saying yes very good point and we certainly are going to get to public comment um we might not get all the way through public comment depending on how many people um raise their hands but it's important to hear from as many people as we can tonight um Miss Nuka um I just wanted to say that I also agree with um Miss Capelli and Mr Cohen on this point regarding the um uh FR to John Jefferson yeah good as do I um okay not just so I understand that is is the point that the house should front Jefferson should front on Jefferson and face Jefferson correct yeah yeah the the the um driveway can come off of Kyler but the house should front on and face Jefferson consistent with everything else on the street yeah and and with apologies I know this is a this is all very useful information will lead to a a both a better product and ultimately um I I'm I'm hoping an approval at at some point but I just would be absolutely clear what to what just to make sure I what I'm hearing um one uh not to expect setback relief that we had already indicated we were abandoning two um Orient the home to face Jefferson with a front facade on Jefferson and then three a preference but but not necessarily a requirement at this point based on these discussions we're having um of a driveway oriented as you've seen it onto the secondary Road um I just wanted to what I don't want to happen is just to if we have to go and redesign a home and as it turns out there's some layout reason that causes it to actually make sense for like the other homes on Jefferson uh to have a driveway that faces Jefferson that that we're not necessarily committing to abandon that at this point it's a strong preference and acknowledgement that that's how uh neighborhood character would look to a corner lot uh but but perhaps uh where I was not hearing flexibility on those first two points the driveway location may be the the U the point where I'm seeing some perhaps flexibility from the board and how that is solved is that a fair summary of of the the comments we've received so far um yeah I don't I don't think that anybody has weighed in heavily on the location of the driveway Mr Cohen has pointed out um what the neighborhood character ordinance um indicates is preferred um I I'm agnostic uh I mean not completely agnostic that's not I I would like to see the the the character ordinance um you know um adhered to uh and and I think that you can make it work but understood no that that's very helpful though I I do believe I don't think this this configuration was identified as a Varian condition but I'm I'm familiar with the Monopoly home piece on the page that you were referring to and and certainly understand we can explore that Mr Cohen thanks Mr Kennedy yeah I had another um unrelated question um I think it's for um for the engineer um there's been some uh I guess buzz in the community with concerns that while this application does not show adus uh associated with the new homes um that that might be envisioned at some point in the future and I noticed that the bulk table just said that F would comply with the 25% requirement I think I'd like a little more testimony in terms of what the actual size of these homes is and how much of the available f is being used by the home so essentially to understand whether there is any possibility that adus could be um introduced at a later date given the proposal that's before us thank you for that question so maybe Eric and I can can tag team this one I I'll I'll remind that that the testimony and the plan submitted were for 2500 foot home so that would not leave any additional room for an Adu now as as Lots created at some point could someone come and and redesign something that had an Adu you know they they um I don't know that there's any prohibition on that that's does that's not the plan and not what these homes as designed would allow um if if that's helpful this is not an attempt to sneak that in I we our our position would be we'd like these lots to be treated as the other Lots on the street are and in the future if somebody wanted to do that I'm not sure why it should be prohibited but um that is not that is not our the the current plan the plan is to to create something like what we've shown but just to be super clear if someone were to redesign the primary dwelling would have to shrink exactly because they would not be able to build more than 2500 square feet of floor area assuming that um the the smallest Adu that really is marketable which is around that 800 sqare foot um uh um situation we would then be looking at a 1700 square foot home with an ATU they there is no pool of extra floor area that we that is uh available um once someone were to put an Adu here um I'll also note um that by respecting that front yard setback on the corner lot um there's still plenty of room for really everything to to work comfortably on that lot uh but a significant portion of that lot is front yard and citing a Adu on a lot with not just a very large front yard but one that has two front yards is um uh challenging or you know based on some of the applications that maybe the zoning bird is here hearing uh right now much more than challenging um the the more uh you know the interior lot there's probably more flexibility there but Mr gr you're correct the the floor area the limit it would be reached you'd have to cut the house in half to to allocate something to an ATU and you know we have the proportional f um but is there been a stipulation that that's not going to be considered I the board in circumstances like this would usually not permit the proportional uh F but has any discussion occurred on that and I know Brian you I thought it was touched on before and I thought that based on something in one of the memos um and based on or consistent with what we've just been discussing um uh I assume the board could place a condition that limits the F on each line to 25% I'll say we assumed that you would and also assume that I would object in a way that I will pretend to be doing now and and understand that that's likely what what the end outcome would be um uh we we we certainly understand our action noted yeah thank you just just shortcut that yeah um other questions Mr leco uh yes Madam chair I would just add on the sheet uh that the engineer was just showing with the zoning chart um it does say that there would be less than 25% uh maximum f as well as uh 30% permitted impervious 30.5% permitted impervious maximum um so if the board carried those through I think that would cover uh those parts of the eventual site plan I'll say certainly as the floor area I I we we're we're pleased that we could design something with this little coverage um there is a threshold that we would reach where we would become a major um project we certainly want to avoid that um 49 and a half percent is permitted um I don't think we'd ever need to approach that but I I I be reluctant I don't know that we could agree to a condition that of something that low when 49 and a half percent is is permitted particularly when we're about to redesign um something uh you know we we don't want to put a future owner here in a situation where they have less floor area than would be permitted by a neighbor or the prior lot or that a um you know adding a flower box or something like that would would trigger unfortunately a variance condition um but something close to that certainly but the um and there's no attempt at slight of hand here but what we are proposing is 30 and a half that might change a little bit after redesign um but uh the the zone does permit 49 and a half and we're pleased to be well under that Mr Cohen yeah I just wanted to point out um that that 49 a half% uh impervious coverage is for lots that are under a quarter of an acre um lots that are a quarter of an acre which is the uh requirement in the zone have a lesser allowance I think it's 36% right so these are still well under the 36% but you know in a similar uh vein as not allowing bonus F because of the creation uh of non-conforming lots I would I would not Advocate uh granting higher impervious coverage allowance than would ordinarily be permitted in the zone because we gave a variance for non-conforming Lots so I I would be advocating for a 36% you know uh imperious coverage limit strongly agree understood I I I would just make sure that the the the discussion didn't go down to uh the 30% that we were pleased that we think we can achieve but to just to at least be on the same Level Playing Field as as the similarly situated neighbors or the lot in the prior condition frankly okay um Mr uh Mr Ru narrain have you finished your testimony yes Madam chair um Mr Kennedy do you want us to hear from your planner be David do you have further okay your hand is down now yeah it was something for the planner really so I I hope we'll hear some testimony yeah I I would love to have um our our planners testimony um certainly get that out then we can make sure we hear it from as many of the neighbors as possible but uh yes like to get that on the on the uh the record um and answer any any board members questions that we have on that um so Barbara want to return here yes I do thank you so much for for patiently waiting here while we uh looked at the design of this project um uh just to jump right into it you've you've uh You' visited this site and reviewed the plans that we're looking at here tonight yes I has she been qualified yet uh yes yes she has she was okay so let yeah let me just jump into it Y and you know you know what slides we have I'm happy to put up whatever kind of maps if it's helpful while you're discussing right now there's a something from the master plan but if you'd prefer just a uh an area map I'd happy to put that up uh can you put up slide number seven sure can there we go all right so uh good evening uh my name is Barbara I was going to walk you through this planning testimony this evening uh so in slide number seven uh obviously it's showing the characteristics of properties along the northern portion of Kier Aven Kier Road um Tyler Tyler Ah that's all right I'm sure we have people who live on that road that want to hear it properly so go ahead um but the properties along here actually uh demonstrate a variety of kind of lot widths and lot areas uh there are a number of lots that are 023 acres which is what is proposed this evening uh before I go into really the the variance tests I always like to review the community's master plan and in this instance uh you have a very recent one in 2023 uh which is uh probably one of the most current I've seen um under the L use element and it discusses a missing middle on page 37 it says allowing greater density by easing certain zoning restrictions will help provide new middle missing middle housing the principles of missing middle housing align with the priorities identified throughout the public engagement process Princeton residents are generally interested and permitting more housing within and around the downtown increasing flexibilities to flexibility create a us allowing single family homes on small or undersized Lots allowing tiny homes and permitting the conversion of single family homes into attached residential dwelling buildings together these efforts can increase the availability of housing for Middle income households um and I note under growth under the section entitled growth that reinforces and strength Princeton's Community fabric the master plan states allowing neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown and the shopping center to add gentle infill will bring more households of small and medium size within walking distance of mixed juuse nodes and their mired amenities significantly reducing the need for Individual Car trips and resulting traffic congestion so the subject property is actually located approximately a half mile from the Princeton shopping center and uh approximately a half mile in a different direction uh from the community's public um amenities such as the public pool and such um the r district is located is uh within an area characterized as Central neighborhood which I believe was uh depicted on slide number eight which is the next slide was I wrong nine there we go so you can see we're in the central neighborhood uh District uh with respect to this District the master plan says Central neighborhood areas include single family dwellings on small Lots two family dwellings town houses and multii housing at densities between 4 and 20 units per acre these areas are characterized by the relative absence of environmental constraints the availability of utilities and services including Transit and close proximity to the downtown business district and Princeton Shopping Center Central neighborhood areas are most appropriate for infill and Transit oriented Redevelopment so your master plan is seeking to allow a little bit higher density in these neighborhoods in order to kind of fill in the housing stock and it recognizes that this that the central neighborhood is a perfect area for this it's located uh along existing infrastructure so there's already water sewer roadways um access to public transportation access to re uh retail access to Municipal services in these areas um and it it specifically says or points to uh permitting maybe somewhat smaller lot sizes in order to accommodate this and this application is on point with these goals and objectives um I also note that as was shown in the previous slide uh that a lot of this size or lots of these size would not be uncharacteristic within this particular neighborhood uh when we discuss uh variances we also discuss the purposes of zoning and in this I would have find that it uh promotes um to C to provide adequate light air and open space so although the parel will be slightly under sized for the district uh they will respect lot they will respect all setbacks lot coverages building Heights uh floor area ratio standards um the full Gambit um uh it would also opine e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that would contribute to the well being of person's neighborhoods of communities and regions and preservation of the environment in this instance uh the area proposed of each of the Lots is characteristic within the neighborhood um it's not increasing density necessarily beyond what is already existing and what is envisioned for the area uh and M to encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with a view of Lessing the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land uh so this is an existing oversized parcel within the district uh that can provide for gentle infill within the neighborhood um and provide two single family homes which are permitted within the district um it also speaks to the environmental concerns of the community and that this is a parcel that is already developed um and yes it'll be subdivided uh but again it can use existing infrastructure uh so services will not necessarily have to be extended to a new area uh with respect to the bulk variant s uh which is the lot area for each parcel I would app that it would qualify under the C2 criteria uh the C2 uh we often describe as a Balan test or or how it presents a better zoning alternative and that the benefit occurs not just to the homeowner or to the property owner uh but to the community itself um and this speaks to the Kaufman Cas is is where we typically pull that information from um so as I've discussed the the proposed subdivision speaks directly to the master plan and what is envisioned for this uh Central neighborhood uh of providing for that additional density or these these medium or small siiz homes that provide for a middle housing for the community um and as I also said the property is situated within portion of the community that exhibits these traits they won't be unique lots that necessarily are sore thumb within the neighborhood but instead provide a visual continuity uh along the roadway uh with respect to the negative criteria I do not see any uh the single family homes as proposed will not generate um significant or substantial dment with regards to traffic noise or trash as the use the single family home is anticipated within the zone and the Zone therefore anticipates the impacts associated with same um so with that respect I I do believe that the application does meet the criteria for the C2 variants and that it does prevent uh present on a balance a positive for the community uh are there any questions that I can answer any questions from board members or Miss enen I don't see any thank you thanks for that my pleasure um any anybody else wants to raise before we go to public comment Mr leco uh yes Madam chair uh I had one other comment um that Kyler road is not listed as part of the proposed sidewalk network uh of the the sidewalk Network map of the master plan which was carried over from the 2017 map um so all of those things that we were talking about earlier about requirements and waivers and all that don't apply let me just be clear about that real quick that being said um with at least one of the buildings from on Kyler uh the applicant May seek to add a sidewalk from the corner of Jefferson through to the frontage of these two properties um to create a better pedestrian atmosphere especially with the second house fronting on Kyler y I agree with that um okay seeing no other comments from board members I will um open the meeting to public comment now so there are 41 members of the public two two people have their hands up already first Doug rubben and then Jess and then Serena Connelly so several hands going up now um uh if you're going to want to address the board tonight about this application um now is the time to raise your hand so um I think that Carrie has brought over uh a few or the first uh couple of people who do we have first Carrie that would be Doug rubben okay hi Mr Ruben uh we just need to swear you in and then um then you can uh fire away okay Mr meller if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give me the truth yes I swear so want to affirm please tell your phone name and spell your last name Douglas Rubin rubbin good thank you I've been a resident of this area right around the corner for 25 years I live about 200 feet Due West of the corner uh PRI prior I lived on the other side of Kyler Road on uwing street I ride my bicycle I walk around area all the time um I know the house very well because we used to bring our child to U Alysa Wells have a baby care service there we use Tom Wells as our electrician occasionally the house is not good it does not have a good face on Jefferson Road U I also want to point out the house right across the street which is 151 Mount Lucas does not front Jefferson Road either so I know this corner very well uh anything in this lot would be an improvement um uh this property was run down 20 years ago I'm it's a great location as the planner talked about walking distance to so much we love the area I don't see any reason why it would be bad to build two homes here and I really hope um the council first of all I want to thank you for the opportunity and I hope uh the planning board approves this and um you know that's one additional family move into Princeton because I love our new neighbors that's it thank you for your time thank you Mr Ruben appreciate that um the next person is Jess and then Serena Connelly and Tom Judson great Jess if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm in testimony about to give be the truth yes okay could you uh State your full name and spell your last name um Jessica Atkins and my last name is ATK inss thank you go right ahead okay so I also live in the neighborhood I've lived here for almost 10 years just right around the corner about a block away and um I want to uh second what M Miss Wilson and Miss saach said that uh making the facade face Jefferson because Jefferson is absolutely do the dominant Road um kiler uh or Kyler that's the side road it's just I mean you don't even see it like when when you're going by so it would be very odd to have the side of a house facing Jefferson and it would just kind of ruin the character of the neighborhood um also thank you for conforming to the setbacks because that's also very very important I mean if you've ever been on this street it is extremely distinct and it would be very nice to keep the character um of Jefferson because it really contributes to how the neighborhood looks um and then my other two points are about impervious surface so this neighborhood has a lot of flood flooding problems like a lot and a lot of times they're being um handled by these ring Gardens which actually hold some of them have been holding like a lot of water even even though they drain after a few days sometimes you go by and there's a lot of algae growing in them they look awful I think they're dangerous for small children um and I don't want to see a gigantic ring Garden put on additional front yards so having entirely a lot of improvi surface leads to that and that's um a negative and then um my last point is I disagree that this is missing middle housing I mean the 2500 foot house is very large um and also the median income from Princeton according to the 2022 census was 40 um uh $49,000 so a house that is 2500 feet that's five bedrooms is probably going to be 1. 5 million or more which means that you need over $200,000 of income to afford that house so that's absolutely not missing midal that's not what the town intended I don't think when they started this um and I do favor affordable housing I do favor development but I don't favor um using these kinds of things as an excuse um but like I said I do appreciate trying to conform to the neighborhood and making things fit in because it's really important to be sensitive that because I've seen a few streets in Princeton where that has not happened and they look like a mess and um Linden Lane is one of them so sorry I hope no one lives there but it looks it looks terrible and it did not look like that when I moved here um and I would really hate to see that happen to my neighborhood right thank you thank you okay the next person is Serena Connelly and then Tom Judson M Conley if you can raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I do so want to affirm please State your full name and spell your last name Serena Connelly c n n o l l y okay thank you thank you uh this is the second planning board meeting in the space of a week that is considering subdivisions in the streets near the shopping center once again members of the Princeton Community are showing up to express their concern at these subdivisions and their requests of developers to seek variances to regulations that are already in place the application is for non-conforming Lots just because the town a half century ago built 23 acre lots doesn't mean we should now the frequency of these kinds of meetings is no accidents developers in Princeton are perhaps aware that they might simply seek so many variances for so many Lots in so many meetings on such short notice that community members will find it difficult to mobilize in order to make their voices heard developers know that they just need to wear us down but why should we find ourselves this community needing to mobilize so often isn't the planning board it's members residents of Princeton meant to represent the needs of this community when considering applications increasingly it doesn't feel that way increasingly it feels as though the developers financial needs come first the ideology of small City Advocates comes second and the needs and views of The Wider Community comes last so please members of the planning board there are reasons we have planning regulations to safeguard everyone's enjoyment of their property their neighborhood their Town listen to your community first not the developers thank you uh thank you Miss Conelly okay Tom Jetson is the next person to speak and then Paul Walberg hi can you hear me yes you can if you could raise your right hand can you Mr Judson excuse me um Jerry can you activate your camera Tom Judson yeah great thank you if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give be the truth yes so want to affirm please say your full name and spell your last name Tom Judson Jud s o n thank you go right ahead I live on the same block uh at 26 Kyler Road in a house two properties away uh grew up here starting in 1969 and just recently became the owner in that way I'm one of the oldest residents and one of the newest owners I the house here is undeveloped and I intend to keep it undeveloped not to expand it at all um while growing up here I saw modest changes to single story houses along the lines of filling in the carport to add one or two more rooms along those lines an adjacent house I'm on 59 lot 59 lot 57 is doing internal developments or redeveloping the house by doing some internal reconstruction similarly it's in apples and orange is just a comparison in my opinion to say that the houses a block away that are slightly smaller that were allowed to be sucked years ago are similar are in some way like these new properties they weren't subdivided they're not Square they're all single story they're not two and really half story with the extra attic they're not the new mcmansions which is what the the new ones are appearing to be in the in the diagrams are presented um just to wrap up the existing developments didn't divide the Lots they didn't multiply the units and doing so would not be the kind of gradual departure would be an Abrupt lurching change to the quality of the neighborhood and really a signal change to the way that Princeton is being developed it's an ongoing change that's bigger it's a subdivision and a multiplying of units that doesn't even preclude an eventual 4unit area thanks thank you Mr Judson so next person is Paul wallberg I've moved him over already and then Michael Bell will be next Mr wallberg if you could raise your right hand do you swear affirm the testimony about to give be the truth I do okay please say your full name and spell your last name my name is Paul Walberg my last name is spelled w l b r g thank you okay so thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak I live at 393 Walnut Lane approximately a block away from the house in question um as I said last time during the The Proposal that was reviewed last week for 6ca doing I am opposed to the subdivision of this lot for the very same reason that I'm opposed to the lot at 46 ad doing many of us did not know about this until the last minute we feel like the planning board has pushed a lot of ideology on us that we didn't know about until the last minute and you gave us no time to review the plan and no time to react then you said we didn't have to worry about it because it would matter until the um until the council reviewed the um the zoning laws and now it appears that's different you're going ahead with your plans with individual developers coming to you for adjustments subdividing these Lots the way you are where you already have adus will allow the building of four family homes where there was originally one and that is our problem they do not need to subdivide this because they can already build two houses using the Adu law that would at least limit the density to the two and that's much better than turning around taking lots that are small next to other small ones making more small ones and then using that to argue for even more small ones including all the ones on Walnut Lane we're only now beginning to understand what's happening I think as many people start to see additional projects like this showing up next to theirs they're going to be upset too um so please do not allow these subdivisions they can already build two homes with the current laws as they are and please follow your own zoning regulations before you march into our neighborhood and blow them out of the water even though everybody says they're opposed to it I'd now like to give the rest of my time to um Patricia uh who is here and has had some trouble getting her internet to work is that okay with you can I give my time here and just let her sit down and you can swear her in um we we allow each person who speaks to have three minutes so if you have right that's fine and thank you also for giving us all time since you we you take two hours out of your out of our schedules to listen to thank you for giving us three minutes each I appreciate it and also for not even allowing me to defer my time to anyone else oh um no I think I think he she was going to let me have three minutes yes three minutes that's what you got yeah yes ma'am okay can can I go I know I know Michael Bell is also waiting but could I go now since we're here if you could raise your um yes um I ran over from my house my my my camera wasn't working if you that's fine thank you if you could raise your right hand I'll swear you certainly swear or affirm the testimony about to give it be the truth yes so one from please take your full name and spell your last name Patricia lofberg L FB r g thank you hi everyone um my name is Patricia lofberg and I live at 79 Kyler um previously I've had the pleasure to address the board for a variance for my own property and I had to notify neighbors with certified letters and post that information you know in the newspaper and I'm very concerned that I and many of my neighbors had not received any information about this subdivision uh on Jefferson and also the one on youing and I realized that there may be I don't know how many feet away are um to decide who gets notified but I think that it should be considered to expand these notifications that are seeking a change to the character of a neighborhood to ensure that the entire neighborhood I I'm on I've got one on one side and one on the other and knew nothing about it until today now to get to the tonight's topic I and the other neighbors are very opposed to the splitting of these two of this property into two non-conforming law lot and I'm very concerned it will allow four houses to be built where there was originally one and I know that some of you have brought that up tonight and try to make sure that there will not be those other um buildings but I want to be sure that that would not happen and we want one house on that lot um this is a quality of life issue for our neighborhood we are a diverse neighborhood with young families and older families come to our neighborhood and you'll see parents pushing strollers children on tricycles and bicycles Walkers and Runners and people walking their dogs Neighbors from adjoining neighborhoods come to our neighborhood to walk because it's safe AE aesthetically pleasing sorry um with our property setback and lovely Landscapes to add these houses and additional cars at the corner of Kyler and Jefferson presents safety concerns children walk and ride bikes to school turning into Kyler Road from Jefferson is narrow and with additional car volume there creates a potential safety problem not all of my neighbors could attend this evening so even with the short notice we have gathered 41 names of neighbors opposed to this subdivision and in four hours we did that today and I would like to read those names to the board now we the signed are opposed to the excuse me petitions are not permitted um it's not a petition it's not permitted as a matter of for all right well just for the matter of record we have 41 names who are opposed to this okay thank you for your time thank you please please consider our neighborhood consider the way Jefferson should look as you've brought up tonight and our small neighborhood where this these two houses will be at the end and they're probably going to add two more on and cause more problems at the entrance to our neighborhood thank thank you Miss lofberg thank you thank you Mr Bell yes can you hear me thank yes we can and thank you for thank you for waiting that was not expected yes swear or affirming testimony about to give will be the truth I do just one um please State your full name and spell your last name Michael Bell last name b l l 103 kylo Road uh this is the second time in a week that I've addressed this planning board about the matter of subdivisions first for 469 newing now at the end of Kyler Road where we see the creation of non-conforming lots 469 Ying is more drastic because there four houses are proposed on what was originally a044 AC lot at the moment the developer says he's only going to put up two houses here but this is a subdivision hearing not a a final planning approval what's to say that that plan that was presented will not come back and morph into four houses with an Adu on each lot you can't guarantee that the other thing I'm very concerned about is impervious coverage as uh board member Cohen has stated there should be no bonus for splitting an existing lot into a non-conforming lot and seeing the impervious coverage limit go from 36 up to 40 up to 49 a half% just because the Lots become non-conforming that is wrong that's what I previously called slight of hand on the part of developers not on the part of the board I reiterate and I think it's very important that that condition be attached if this is approved that's all I want to say I agree with all of the neighbors who've been before in opposition to this that site should be developed but it should be you a single family home thank you thank you Mr Bell I've already moved Micah fearing over and Bill dampier next Mr F could raise his right hand do you swear affirm the testimony about to give be the truth I do so one or affirmed thanks hi everybody it's nice to see uh all the members of the planning board and everyone else here um usually often I'm on the other side because I do development applications in Princeton um I live at 463 Jefferson Road it's the other house on the corner of Jefferson and Kyler um and I really appreciate the board spending all this time to hear the application tonight um I think a lot of great things were said what I'm really concerned about is that we do get plans before we just approve a subdivision I think there's been a lot of good comments about having the house front Jefferson so it's consistent with the streetscape and also about how the kind of the layouts of the houses the other one on Kyler too I think they're both important for the Kyler Street um so I I really appreciate the board's comments about you know probably that this I don't think that if this is to be subdivided it should be subdivided until it's really clear what the plans are so that there's full transparency because this is a big deal for the neighborhood um people are I've spoken to people I've had people knock on my door you know people are really not happy with the plans is presented and to kind of you know quote the applicant there were some last minute changes made um two days ago you know before they were seeking these big setbacks now they're saying they're not we want to make sure that whatever they're proposing really does work um and I think before we we take any actions it's important to make sure that things are you know thought through um you know that said to be honest I don't support the subdivision I do think that um what we're creating here is not middle housing it's two houses that are probably going to sell from you know close to $2 million per house um and there already is you know a mechanism by which two houses can be built here and it's called an Adu and a lot of what has been said is that we should have a house that fronts Jefferson and we could totally have a house that fronts Jefferson and then an Adu you know fronting Kyler and that there is so that mechanism really exists and you know making more money is not a hardship um I think was brought up in the last discussion so I'm wondering what the hardship is here and why two homes can't be created one front one larger home fronting Jefferson and then a smaller home um which would provide that middle missing house much more so than these two $2 million homes and you know I am generally for more density in town I'm generally for you know more happening rather than less but I just in this you know I guess in this instance I don't see why we can't have both the affordable house and the other house um but either way I I definitely think there should be transparency and we should hopefully get the plans and I really appreciate everyone's time and I think that this has been a great meeting so far and that there has been the thought that you know needs to go into this and I will defer to whatever you know obviously the board decides is the right path to go to um whether it's required the plans whether it's you know either way but thank you so much everybody for your time it's been a long night and um I really appreciate it so with that that's all thank you Mr firing I just wanted to announce I have H five four people with their hands up one person has declined several times that's Mr dampier we have Samuel bunting Liz dich and Toby Israel okay is um willly Willy Woo is the next yeah Mr Woo is next right oh wiie woo yes I did bring him over I'm so sorry that's okay can you see me yes if you could raise your right hand do swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I do so SW affirmed please set your full name spell your last name William woo last name spelled w thank you uh this is the first time I attending this type of meeting here in Princeton even though I've been here for quite a few years I must command the board here I was very impressed with the questions you folks actually asked the developer and I love these questions I feel like I'm in good hands in terms of uh uh the importance of Jefferson I live on Jefferson and the importance of uh keeping uh requirement on uh on the zoning requirements I do hear also my neighbor's voice I must say I haven't been here that long I used to live in lawrenville uh now coming to think about it uh we live in Princeton now for almost close to 10 years I we love the Ambiance and the whole Township and we also do see the need for development uh we are new so we don't really resist having new neighbors at the same time though I do hear the voice of my neighbors here I probably would think when we move in they didn't probably quite welcome us uh that's the honest truth that's how I feel so there is this balance of development and keeping what Princeton has been and what's the attraction of Princeton and the last I want to reiterate I just feel like I we're in good hands with the board members here uh in particular I must say uh Mr David Cohen and Miss sax uh do seem to uh uh represent what I was thinking uh thank you so much for the opportunity to share my thoughts thank you Mr Woo and thank you for your kind words thank you um is Mr bunting next Carrie yes welcome Sam Mr Muller will swear you in if you could raise your right hand you swear Our affirmate Testimony about to give be the truth I do s oneir Samuel bunding of 99 Dempsey Avenue I wasn't going to speak tonight because um I I thought that the comments from the board members were mostly reasonable but I have to say something because I have to push back on this idea that everyone in the neighborhood is against this subdivision I am not against it uh I stand with Doug rubben in agreeing that uh this is a perfectly reasonable subdivision uh what's more there has been sh Shenanigans from people who ought to know better and they know who they are and I know who you are and I don't like it scaring up this opposition and and fear in the neighborhood over an application which is really quite modest look at the application as it is proposed it proposes to create two lots of 0.23 Acres entirely consistent with many of the existing Lots along howler Road the idea that we are somehow turning Princeton into Manhattan or something from this it's just not correct what we are talking about are di Minimus variances only a fraction lower than the minimum lot size which most of the Lots on kylo rule do not even conform to I think it's sad that people have gone around trying to scare up our neighbors about this application this application is not a significant change to the neighborhood with the conditions that the planning board have already enumerated it would be entirely reasonable to approve this my I I I must say you know what I'm going to stop there I think it's a reasonable application with the condition have the house front on to uh Jefferson Road many of us in the neighborhood are entirely content with this kind of proposal which will produce some very nice new homes for the neighborhood thank you very much thank you Mr bunting who's next Carrie I'm sorry um I've already moved over um Liz and the next person is Toby Israel okay if you could raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony about to give it be the truth and you're on mute still so can you can unmute yourself yes I do that's yeah I'm you need to State your full name and spell your last name please I will Elizabeth dich Dy v like Victor I thank you thanks go right ahead um I live at 376 Jefferson Road my house directly faces the lot on Jefferson Road not on the Kyler I live on the Jefferson side directly across the street um just a couple quick points um I am opposed to the subdivision um I feel that for many reasons it is not keeping with character with the neighborhood I also feel like we're trying to provide housing for um people and I don't moderate housing which I think is so lacking in Princeton and by putting both houses they're going to both be I would say over $2 million each which doesn't create any more homes for people who are trying to move into Princeton um I also feel that obviously I do not want to look at the side of someone's house when I would look straight out to please I agree with everyone to please have it face Jefferson so I can at least look the front of someone's house when it comes out um and my other question is are you allowed to tell us who the Builder would be for the houses um well the the application before us is for the subdivision and there's been test there's been discussion by the board that we should have um architectural plans as well but okay uh know but the answer is no I don't I don't well Mr Kennedy can address that question can you pause the um the clock Ian while Mr Kennedy answers the question Ryan are there developers so the the applicant is the developer there's any confusion there but yeah no it's uh and and just to be clear um while we're discussing revisions of the plans full architectural plans for both lots and houses were submitted and on file with the town um and we're g to hear to to file um uh to to revise them and that you'd like to see them if if the one lot is is revised um architecturally um uh but just just wanted to be clear that those are all on file and you know we focused our presentation on the uh on the subdivision and the planning things but they're all all there in it okay I just didn't know if they knew who the Builder was going to be at okay okay Ian you can start the clock again Excuse Me Miss diit I didn't that's fine I'm confusing things but oh not from the start but oh that's fine I don't you got about a minute I just wanted to reiterate that I really am opposed to the subdivision if it has to happen I definitely would prefer that the house front Jefferson and the the other one on Kyler okay that's it thank you so much thank you very much I'm sorry for confusing things um go ahead Carrie Toby Israel is the last person that I'm aware of to speak okay I think we have someone else um after that who's name is Maggie Mr Israel if you could raise your right hand M Miss Israel I think oh M yes oh okay sorry um do you swear or affirm the testimony you give uh will be the truth uh you're on mute there we go yeah yes I do i s want to uh okay so it just strikes me that um there's a bit of History missing here I'm uh at 429 Walnut Lane my house is on the corner of Walnut and Kyler um and so now I've been here 30 years so I'm I'm kind of giving this history secondhand but as I understand it Kyler the name Kyler comes from the Builder Kyler who um either the township or a foundation um hired to build these houses particularly to create an integrated neighborhood in Princeton um those neighborhoods being few and far between and they were particularly designed to be affordable housing um and in fact at one point uh there was some thinking that they would uh ask for this to be a historic neighborhood to preserve that very history to ensure that that affordability uh remained in place so um while I'm not jumping up and down and uh you know screaming about these uh two houses they're certainly not affordable and uh appropo of reading the portion of the master plan the whole part about missing midle middle and affordable dwelling units is that we preserve that affordability and thereby uh ensure that there's diversity in the town as well so again as some other people have said I would guess that these are going to be uh 1.5 million or more and thus going exactly against uh what those statements in the town plan were trying to ensure so I I really have a question about that um secondly I uh another part of the history here is maybe some of you can help me out about 10 or 15 years ago when we were revalued what happened was there was a slide of hand and the tax burden went from the Western section to our section of town and that was because we were the place that has these empty lots Builders would come in developers would come in buy these lots and build these $1.5 million houses plus which meant that the town uh uh tax taxmen would look at by law anything any neighborhood that where the uh values went up more than 15% and those neighborhoods had to have higher taxes so there's that tax question too so I think um some of this history has to be put into the mix and thought very deeply about before approving houses that would change the historical nature of the town in this um social sense and uh just change perhaps our tax burden as well thank you thanks for that okay the next person is Maggie and then Hillary persy Maggie if you could raise your right hand do you can you activate your C there you go hi you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I do okay please set your full name and spell your last name Maggie Deen Brock d e p e n is in Nancy B is in boy r o c k thank you y hi um thanks for letting me speak my name is Maggie I live um on 333 Nassau Street I'm not a direct neighbor of this uh proposal in question but I am a resident of Princeton and I have been one a homeowner here for the last 20 years um I wanted to just echo my support for many of the neighbors that I hear here speak tonight I too am not in support support of this subdivision uh primarily because I I quite honestly don't understand the hardship that the developer has um and I am concerned that some of the justification that was pointed to relates directly to the master plan that we just discussed a few months back where we were all assured to calm down that no zoning uh laws would be changing overnight yet here we are with the developer pointing to that exact master plan trying to justify why this subdivision should be granted um and I also want to just Echo and agree with many of the comments Miss Connelly raised asking this board to start listening to the residents of this town that have um just woken up and are starting to pay attention please listen to us we love our town we don't want it drastically changed uh we're not anti-development we're not anti new residents and new neighbors but um you know we we'd ask that you consider the character and what makes Princeton special and a place where people want to live here that's all I wanted to say thank you have a good night thank you very much okay Hillary persy is next uh hi I'm trying to go on camera okay okay go hi thanks very much you swear or affirmed the testimony about to give be the truth yes I do so want iirm thank you um thanks very much um I'll keep this very very short I just wanted to speak very briefly in favor of those who oppose the subdivision um many of whom I know to be quite upstanding somewhat surprised by my other neighbor statement I live on one 100 Kyler Road um so I'm quite close to where this is proposed and really what I want to say is brief that one of the things I have valued most about this neighborhood where I've lived for about 13 years are the small homes the relatively affordable homes in a very expensive town and it makes me sad to see more and more small homes replaced with very large homes that I could not afford and that's pretty much what I want to say thank you thank you Miss pki um are there any other members of the public who wish to address the board on this application I see Mary llaca has uh raised their hand anyone else now is the time to raise your hand um Carrie can you bring llaca over here we go would you raise your right hand um she on she's in the participants room but um miss little pla you need to um activate your camera and unmute yourself if could there we go okay and her hand is raised Mr Muller she's ready do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give a the truth I do that's when iirm my name is Mary llaca and it's spelled La capital P LA CA thank you go right ahead hi good evening or late evening to everyone um I live on Hamilton Avenue um not too far a couple of blocks and I've driven down Jefferson for many years on my way to teaching it's a beautiful street especially now with all the construction where I live there's a breath of fresh air it's a nice wide Road the houses are set back um it's beautiful and I think my concern is not that there a new home will be built there or even possibly two homes um my concern as it is throughout Princeton is just the uh loss of Imperial uh surfaces porest surfaces for this increasing climate we're experiencing and obviously the more building the more surface coverage the more driveway the more of everything makes uh Princeton much more susceptible to flooding and as where I live Hamilton Avenue the infrastructure is old there's flooding uh I've also experienc Sewer back up into my basement from the town um so these are things to consider and again you know when new homes are built uh more surfaces are covered uh makes a bigger imprint in the town um and I just feel and that we talk about open space and preserving it really our neighborhood our Lawns our property are really the biggest open space that we have in Princeton it's the grass it's the plants it's the bushes it's all of that that we have in our yards that help us fight pollution or in invite you know just nature in so building is going to happen it's happening on my street larger houses are being built change is inevitable but when the zoning board considers this and they give a little bit of land a little bit of inch and they change the variances all of a sudden our structures become much more large we lose that neighborhood feel so um I'm just asking to be very careful and I don't believe it's extenuating circumstances that this variance should be granted I think it should fit within the existing zoning laws and I do support a lot of the um neighbors who feel that we need to be be careful in granting these variances I'm not against building uh but just making sure it fits the climate and the long Pro the longterm process of what our neighborhood will look like in 10 or 30 years and I also agree that building a home that's going to be over a million dollars is not a middle class home uh most to if I said to someone uh I've got a great home for you it's middle class but it's 1.2 million I don't think they would consider that a very affordable home for most people so if that's the goal then we're not meeting it thank you very much thank you thank you so we have um two more who have raised their hands maybe three p p Ryder is being moved over first Mr sein declined perhaps he wants to speak a little bit later okay Mr rder if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm uh wait wait just a sec Jerry can you activate your camera P re d r okay now now he's ready to um be sworn in to be sworn in yes if you could uh do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give a be the truth we are not hearing you I can't hear you now your mute thing is on is there a is a separate mute on your keyboard that might be activated or we're still not hearing you at all he he doesn't seem to be saying anything now he he did yes can be a little hard to tell with the big bushy mustache but he was yes he's definitely uh unable to be heard so Mr leco are you checking to see whether there's anything on our rent no no I don't think so but I was just going to suggest uh if you went this trick works 90% of the time uh if you go to the little microphone in probably the lower left corner and the carrot next to it you could change your microphone um and sometimes swapping that around for whatever reason uh allows you to speak can you hear me now yeah yes thank you um the fact that I have taught so many classes at Princeton Zoom during covid You' think that I would remember how to do this uh but it's actually your system I appreciate it okay you swear firm the testimony about to give be the truth yes counselor thank you please say your full name spell your last name all last name as a writer re e d David e r uh I I want to thank you all I think you've done a spectacular job running the meeting for both sessions they were fascinating we live at 377 Walnut Lane in Princeton and have for the past 15 years um we could have lived on Library place we came to Princeton when I came here to teach chemistry to uh join a very diverse neighborhood the kylo ranches are spectacular homes the neighborhoods are amazing and we expanded our home but kept the footprint the the front to remain as a Kyler Ranch because of the history you heard Toby talk about uh this diverse neighborhood is not just diverse ethnically it's diverse economically and we're starting to lose that as you can see and I would strongly support the idea of I think helping the the developers say what they want to do about the master plan and let them keep the existing lot as a single lot and put in one unit that will be spectacularly beautiful and expensive and can face Jefferson and have the other unit be an affordable house which they know they can do and that can face Kyler and stay with the character of the community the idea of having a split lot really seems to not benefit anybody in the community except the developers and I I think you've gotten that sense from everybody who lives around here the U my wife and I walk past that corner virtually every day and uh you can't imagine if you haven't been in this neighborhood what it feels like this is a very special place no even mentioned the monthly potluck dinners that we've had that we were welcomed to Princeton we met 75 of our neighbors the first month we're here this is not just place for Princeton professors this is a place for Masons for lower middle class people who have come from abroad it's a terrific neighborhood I'm proud to live here and I really am worried that it's going to be destroyed if we continue to cut it up in pieces and build very large homes on them time and again for forgive me for my inadequacy with the technology which my students would laugh at at this point thank you no problem at all thank you okay we have one more person who has his hand raised but he has declined my invitation several times so uh Mr Ste if you need to speak then you have to accept the invitation or lower your hand okay he's declined again is that like clicking a button that says decline I'm not sure how it shows on there yeah all right okay uh so last call for folk folks who want to address the board assuming Mr suen is is declining anyone else now the time to raise your hand not seeing any hands go up so I'll close the public no already spoke spoken already so um close the um unless it's his wife unless it's his wife do you think it's his wife um sorry that's a good that's a good thought Carrie um bring Mr Bell over and if it's his wife we we have not yet heard from her and we can hear from her minute unable to start video okay start video oh start my video there we go there you are you okay okay if you could raise your right hand you swear or affirmate testimony about to give will be the truth yes I do s want to airm please State your full name and spell your last name my name is jamee McCarthy MC capital c a t y thank you hi thank you very much for taking my testimony at such late notice um I agree with many of the other residents of the area that we do have a unique neighborhood here and putting subdividing a property and allowing very large H to be built there does not meet the needs of the middle missing middle that people keep talking about providing homes for these are going to be very expensive homes that don't meet that need the other point I wanted to make is when the comparison of lot sizes is done the applicant put all houses that were on the same side of the street Street as examples well the neighborhood is not just one side of the street the other side of the street has much larger lot sizes and should be considered too so just because you have pre-existing lots that are non-compliant doesn't give you permission to say oh this is a great idea to go and make more non-compliant H Bots which is what you're doing those lots that were pre-existing were there before the zoning was put into place so it's a whole different set of rules and I think that's all I have to say but I wanted to make sure you paid attention to what what the uh lot sizes are on the other side of the road as well thank you thank you Miss McCarty so with that I will close the public comment portion of the meeting um and invite uh comments and thoughts from board members we have uh eight minutes um until our Witching Hour clearly not going to finish everything tonight um but I want to hear what people think um Mr Cohen and then miss sax yeah so number one I wanted to um recognize Miss McCarty's comment it was one that I was thinking of making myself I think the applicant's diagram uh showing the non-compliant Lots uh was cropped in a misleading way I think that not only are the lots on the other side of Kyler a different size but also the lots Long Jefferson are a different size and and that's you know part of the consideration so I just want to recognize that uh the accuracy of that comment and and express my own disappointment or concern that the applicant um chose to present in that way uh on the flip side I want to say that I heard the suggestions about you know why can't the applicant just do a single family home within Adu it'll give them the same number of units we'll get one that's a little bit more affordable than what we would under this application and um that is true but if we deny the subdivision and have them do that then they've got an as of right application and we can't really ask for any of the things that we can ask for uh in the case of this this application where we're granting variances and and in order to sort of make the the scales of the positives and the negatives uh more favorable for the town that we can ask for certain things one of the things I would think about and ask the board to think about for our next meeting is storm water management because I think that that's been a comment that numbers of the residents have made I I think it's very valid I think that um I would be interested in um looking for something Beyond just the base of what's required uh in this instance I you know haven't figured out what but um you know if we Grant the subdivision we have some opportunities to um to uh negotiate with the with the applicant and get some benefits in exchange for it which we wouldn't get you know with an as of right application thank you great Point Mia yeah um I was just gonna say you know the frustrating thing about hearing um all of the discussion tonight first of all is one of my frustrations always and the planning board is that I like to have dialogue and and I would love to go back and you know have this be an ongoing dialogue and it and and we're not able to do that in this context but um you know there's a fundamental misunderstanding here uh uh in the in the neighborhood and and I mean I think in Princeton in general and neighbor after neighbor said don't do the subdivision because we want to have smaller more affordable houses and um and the planner's testimony was very unfortunate and really you know clearly the planner doesn't have a grasp on what's happening in Princeton and and so I I'm disregarding that these are this is not missing middle um but there are what the neighbors seek to achieve is not possible on this lot if we do not do the subdivision what they will have is an as of light right very large mcmansion what they will have if the subdivision is granted is not more affordable missing middle but two houses which based on the looks of it are more similar to the houses in Kyler certainly more similar than Micah firings house who has a large house that is quite dissimilar um to the rest of the structures in the neighborhood um but um those are our options we don't you know have a a mechanism as a town to control more than that this is an issue going back to Toby's comments about um what happened at the time of reassessment and where there was a a massive erosion of neighborhood character it was this very neighborhood that spurred the town to embark on the neighborhood character initiative and it was concerned about preserving the character of this neighborhood um and I I I guess you know it it's it's I just want to reiterate granting the subdivision does not in any way um I I mean not granting the subdivision does not maintain the character of the neighborhood what you will have is a massive super-sized house which and if that's what you want then just come to the planning board and be honest about it but that is what these are the real options and I will just say I live on the other side of the shopping center where we're facing the same challenges and there are a number of lots that have been subdivided and there are two houses that fit now price point you could argue are they missing middle not missing middle who even knows what that means in Princeton but um from in in terms of how they physically fit in with what has been a traditionally middle class neighborhood in Princeton you drive down and they look similar there are a number of large Lots in which the houses have been torn down enim MC Mansion has been put in its place and that does not preserve the character it does not preserve the streetcape these mcmansions on these Lots from my perspective are more um do more to destroy at least from an aesthetic perspective the continuity and and and the the the character of the built environment the economics it's a whole other story that we're Limited in what we can do but in terms of I mean the neighbors need to understand the structure that's there and that size is not going to remain no one unless that person decides to stay in their house and keep that but once they sell that and every neighbor should also know that at a certain point they're going to be deciding to sell their their house and it's interesting how when people decide to sell their house they all of a sudden don't want those restrictions uh you know that they have wanted others to abide by or have wanted to be imposed on on them but that house is not going to remain and I know this neighborhood I grew up playing in this neighborhood um I understand the wish to keep it as similar as it was um but someone is going to buy that lot and here's what they're going to do a mcmansion or two smaller smaller less large houses those are options or as some people I mean I appreciated the people who advocated for a mcmansion and Adu at least they were being honest I'm not sure why that is more preferable but one thing we do know it's that whoever buys that lot it is bought but those types of lots what they will replace it with is not what's there and I would love for the Neighbors you know to I would love to hear from them at the next hearing given the realistic constraints of what our options here what they would prefer you know um but we can all say that yes we would like to have more affordable housing there um that unless the neighbors want to P put together a fund and you know I mean we we get into some very challenging economic you know complex is there but the other point I just wanted to make was someone said well we don't know whether it's you know it may be four four structures two adus and two houses which was the application we heard previously you know I think as councilman Cohen um you know discussed with with the uh with Mr Kennedy um that is not an option um they have an application for two houses which will take up the maximum f it does not seem that the board is inclined to Grant additional F so it's here are the options one large house two less large houses um or one large house and one Adu and that's it so I think it's really important for us all to remain within the framework of reality and not what we would in theory like to have but what is actually possible if I may just as a followup um I think Justin might have even said at the beginning this is just a subdivision but I think here given that they have presented what they're going to do as two houses and they've asked us to rely on that I think we could limit it to two houses um in addition I think Justin makes a really interesting point about F in his memo where he says okay we're not going to do proportional F but in addition to that the board should consider reducing the F up consistent with the reduction in the size of the uh lot below what's required and uh he came up with if you did it that way in this un first and second pages of his report the F would be 0.23% I I think the board can do that also and um it's just something for the board to consider um for Lay people um the f means floor area ratio um thanks for that Mr Muller um Owen thank you want to thank uh David and Mia for pointing out uh a very important point about the fact that if we don't sub subdivide the slot then it is an aite build and we can impose no restriction on what on what goes up there you wind up with two two houses in any we may wind up most most likely or one two or maybe one monster there probably be a monster I do want but I and I also want to uh was actually going to say something about Justin's uh proposal about reducing the F uh to 50 the lot size uh you know we we should probably consider that yeah okay thank you so it's um 11:04 um I want to wrap up obviously and I think it's important to get squared away on what we want the applicant to come back with and if we can identify a date um then we can carry this uh with no further notice unless I'm using the wrong words no it's it's the right words um so so what I have heard is um an interest in um uh storm Water Management plan um in uh limit uh limiting the F to 0.23% um M chair if I may you know that wasn't really aside from just the very end discuss and 36% impervious cover that was another thing I heard I'm just saying things that I've heard I I I understand what you're saying because earlier in the meeting we talked about uh 30% or 25% F so I would like to get square on what the board wants to see so that um we don't [Music] um you know move the goalpost for the applicant so maybe Justin could just clarify what he was I I didn't see that part of the memo so sure so basically conditions can be put on variances if the variance requests is to have a 023 acre lot or 0.25 is required uh then if you do the math you know because it's 0.25 it actually comes out pretty good um you could potentially impose 0.23 f on it now of course f is a ratio so you know 0.25 is already uh smaller than than what would have been allowed on one lot um but of of course to fit in with the neighborhood uh I think it's fair to limit or reduce the way that uh the amount of floor area ratio in alignment with the way that the size is is being reduced or being asked to be reduced with apologies of the of late hour I just want to you know be clear about what we might be coming back with you know the Princeton's ordinance and to to Mr Le's point it is a ratio and the only on point here is actually a bonus for undersized Lots if you looked at the undersized lots of the neighborhood they would receive um a floor area bonus we talked about perhaps jettisoning that and going to just a straight ratio this kind of I'll just say regressive floor area for undersized Lots would I don't know what the the math does but you know when we're looking at a $5,000 5,000 square foot as of right single family home or 4,000 squ foot you know as was described by some people on the board of MCM I and an Adu I I just don't want to do the math here after we've heard this at the last hour and come back with something that just doesn't work or make sense for the neighborhood the idea of proportional floor area is so that the homes generally are around the same size so that a slightly undersized lot has a bit of a bonus to allow it to match generally with the lots that are of the exact correct size I can understand to an extent though we would argue you know against it not giving that bonus when a lot is being created that's undersized but to go the other way when the only only ordinance