good evening and welcome this is a special meeting of the Princeton planning board on Tuesday Jan excuse me June 25th 2024 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this special meeting has been given by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on the 10th day of June 2024 notice of this meeting has been posted to the municipal website Princeton nj.gov calendar notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton planning board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Friday January 12th 2024 please note that this meeting is being recorded during hearings on applications for development members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions questions may be asked after an applicant's Witnesses have testified public comment is heard by the board after and applicants Representatives have finished their presentations and have been questioned by planning board members and staff those wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star n oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised we ask with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less we'll have a countdown clock to help speakers keep track of time please note that speakers who exceed three minutes will be interrupted in appropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted will you call the rooll Carri Mr bimer herei I'm here Mr Cohen here Mr mwan here miss Nuka here Mr odonnell here miss pearlmutter here miss Sachs Mr Taylor here Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here we have a quarum okay good um are there any announcements since last Thursday I don't have any myself any announcements from staff or other board members okay um no subcommittee reports tonight oh excuse me Julie please yeah um we had a landscape subcommittee meeting yesterday and um we reviewed uh Galaxy tile which is 820 State Road we also reviewed um West Windsor real estate uh 176 182 and 188 eight Beed Lane and uh we Pro uh approved both Landscaping plans with minor modifications um yes I was even there and still did not think about the fact there would be a report so um thank you for that um uh any other committee reports I don't think so okay um we have two applications before us tonight the first is from the trustees of Princeton University this is a minor site plan with variances at 112 114 and Prospect Avenue Block 3501 Lot 8 and block 3601 Lot 1 this is file number P 2424 D 449 PD Madame chair um we were not able to take jurisdiction at the earlier meeting um because of that clitch um they did ren notice the notice was proper for for publication and service was an order as I understand it and if you could confirm that Carrie that is correct okay and therefore the board has jurisdiction um also we have two members that are recused from a University action so if you can step away until uh um the other application begins that would be wonderful do you want me to move you over to panelist yes please if you would do that Carrie move I will do that bimer Miss Nuka is that correct yeah um also I understand that um Mia needs to be sent an updated link she has clicked on a link that um is not working for her I've just forward it uh mind great thank you thank all right so let's let um let's wait just a a minute or two for um council president saxs to um to join us I'm sure it'll be quick and um and then I'll ask um Justin to give us a quick overview before we turn things over to Mr degia and Mr McCoy just to fill time I will let folks who are um attendees tonight know that there are eight or 19 people um attending tonight who are not panelists I expect um a lot of them might be interested in the second application uh tonight but who knows maybe maybe you're interested in both but there are 19 of you madam chair the 19 include our two uh board members ah 17 thanks e e there we go go ahead Justin thank you madam chair and uh good evening members of the board and members of the public um I think Jerry you need to start in yeah if you could raise your right hand and Derek and Dan here also yes and Elizabeth Kim uh I believe as well if you'd like to swear her in yes all four of you can raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give will be the truth yes I do so us one affirmed and if the other three can so indicate I do I do I do I just can't get my video on sorry okay thank you uh so I'd like to share my screen Madam chair uh just to orient us to the site it's a site that uh members of the board uh and members of the public should probably know well by now um I'm using the publicly available NJ partial Explorer from Rowan University uh the application this first application is for minor site plan approval with a variance request uh it was classified as Minor by the site plan Committee in early June the subject property is on Prospect AV more or less where you see these blue highlights uh note that these lot lines don't truly exist as the subject area is on one large University parcel um the Prospect Avenue apartments are adjacent to the East and they are on their own lot uh and other university uses are on the other three sides um and by University I mean Princeton University if I didn't make that clear um you may remember the companion applications that were approved in 2021 by this board to relocate the building um excuse me uh to relocate the building at 91 Prospect Avenue uh across the street to allow for the development of the 666,000 square foot esc's complex mostly on Ivy Lane but with a portion known as a theorist Pavilion uh fronting on Prospect Avenue where the court club building previously stood uh note that this aerial photo is older uh I'm sure the university will show where the buildings have moved um you know if you went out there uh recently uh the university has a presentation about these previous approvals as well as what they're proposing this application so I'll defer to them at this point I'm happy to answer any questions after their presentation and address the comments from my May uh 31st report if the university did not do so in their presentation Mr Bridger and Mr Weisman are here their engineering and Zoning report I believe Mr Dober milsky is here to speak to his landscape architectural plan review as well um and Miss Kim is here uh as well as member capoli to discuss the historic preservation commission's Memo from their May review and and let's Mark um what you have on the screen is exhibit pb1 okay um thanks Justin I think now we'll turn to Mr deia and Mr McCoy um I trust there are no um no issues that staff want to bring to our attention before the applicant um makes their presentation that's my understanding but yeah not seeing any hands up okay good um go ahead Mr degia welcome back can you hear me okay excuse me soft oh boy um let me see something here sorry about that I've been having a little problem with my let me change it to something different um how's that good better okay um okay thank you for the record my name is Christopher degia from the law firm of fager Drinker Biddle and wreath here on behalf of the applicant Trustees of Princeton University as Mr leco said tonight's application is a minor sight plan application that involves the rehabilitation of three buildings that are located on the north side of Prospect Avenue in connection with the minor site plan we're requesting a variance that's related to the construction of an accessibility ramp um the building itself building uh 116 Prospect is actually located within a sidey setback so when we add the Ada ramp we have to request a variance because it connects to that building in the Set Side setback area I will point out that we aren't increasing the deviation in any way that the side of the building is 11 feet in or so and our ramp is a few feet further about 14 feet 3 in into the property so it's not increasing the deviation in any way as Mr leco indicated there's a there's a history of this site um in October we were here and received a site plan that allowed us to relocate one of the buildings to the rear that's building 112 Prospect it was originally known as 110 Prospect um at that time we got site plan approval to allow the or to allow the scheme that you're about to see where all the three buildings are the reason why we're back before you again um is because the university wanted to add some additional features and enhancements to the site such as the accessibility ramp the university likes to add another rain Garden um we will be proposing to convert some of the existing walkways to porous walkways um taking an asphalt walk and making it blue blue stone walk and removing some of the walkways that we don't need that were previously approved so that we can decrease um some some of the impervious coverage on the property that's not really needed um I would like to mention that it is within the local Prospect Avenue historic district so we did appear before the historic preservation commission um to talk about our uh Rehabilitation which meets the interior and exterior um standards for the secretary interior standards for treatment of historic properties I know that's a mouthful but um we received a a very we the application was very well received and I think with our um the presentation you about you're about to see that you'll see that there's a lot of care and research that has gone into this restoration plan um it was enthusiastically endorsed and recommended for approval by the historic preservation commission and with that introduction I would like to um bring up our first witness University architect Ron McCoy and I guess have him sworn in yep Ron Chris do you have anybody else yeah I I think we could bring up our team um we have uh another architect project manager and also our landscape architect okay uh if you could all raise your right hand and swear activate your cameras y y and oh I'm sorry our civil engineers here as well sh okay and do you swear or affirm testimony you're about to give would be the truth I do okay if you could go around State your full name SP your last name Ron McCoy University architect MCC y the other people here yes McCoy why don't you call on your team or M Stone why don't you go next a my name is St BHA b s h Stephanie Stephanie Valentine with AOS Architects it's v a l n t i n Tom Tom mhe civil engineer O Apostrophe s hea and we also have our project manager Martha uh my video is not not uh able so I I can't um I can show myself but I am here okay and spell your name uh D apostrophe a v i l a okay are you a civil engineer also I am an architect an architect okay thank you um I think my first witness will be uh University architect Ron McCoy who will uh take us through our prepared presentation I like to have him qualified I know um he's been Ron can you give us a brief history of your experience in uh education I'm an architect licensed in uh New Jersey and other states of the country um I have a master's architecture degree from Princeton University I'm a fellow in the AIA and uh I think that does it we accept your qualifications thank you thank you um we did submit uh previously I think it's uh 34 slide presentation or something to that effect I'd like to mark that as exhibit A1 and we'll identify the slides as we go through it okay J yep that's fine okay great okay let's get started let me share my screen you can see this yeah yes great okay this is slide number one uh just to maybe summarize a few things that have already been sent by Mr leco and Mr deia uh these uh buildings were previously approved in the uh site plan application uh for the esc's project and we are coming here to talk about some minor adjustments and modest improvements that we've made to the plans and most specifically is the uh request for the variance for the location of the accessible ramp at 116 uh prospect that building will be used for offices and we want to make the first floor of that accessible and so it requires the uh accessible ramp now I'm on slide two this is just generally the agenda we're going to talk a little bit about uh the campus context the value proposition for this project some of the uh more detailed descriptions of the site and the buildings and we'll touch on sustainability slide three the value proposition uh is uh really follows the uh um reflects the conditions of approval for the project what have has to do with the renovation of the queenan buildings on the site and rehabilitating them in a manner that's consistent with the secretary of interior standards so that's our goal slide four um there are two slides here uh two images of the site side by side the one on the left was the uh uh condition prior to the 2023 relocation of 110 the slide on the right shows the relocation of 110 and the renumeration of 110 it graduated to 112 and it sits between 114 and 116 on on Prospect Slide Five this is a diagram of the um uh Prospect Avenue historic district The Local District with the boundary shown here um as noted uh in staff comments we've engaged a team led by uh mil snoring to submit an application to H to shipo to include include these in the state historic district that that work is still ongoing uh and we don't have any update to provide uh tonight one little detail I would note is that the um we restored the ferris Thompson gate which is on this street and the gate was done uh to a standard that merited a gold medal from the uh for restoration from the national ornamental and miscellaneous medals Association in 2024 so we did a good job with that I think other this agree slide six so this is a uh bit of a summary of some of the Key conditions on the site this one shows the proposed site with 112 114 and 116 all relocated uh some of the Landscaping was previously approved in the relocation uh during the previous application and some of the changes are are listed here uh this some the concept is to continue the street uh landscape uh strategy that we had talked about in previous applications in particular the low hedge along Prospect Avenue which picks up the tradition of the low hedge uh there is a walkway to 116 which is blue stone and will be reset there is a walkway to 114 which is currently asphalt and will be upgraded to Blu Stone there are some low balled lightings along these Pathways uh that will not cause issues with surrounding buildings they will Design they they are dark sky technology comp client and the ramp uh to 116 at the northeast corner of that we'll show that more in detail on some of the uh upcoming slides this is the previous slide seven uh this is the previous of plan just for reference in case we need it and slide eight this is a uh summary of the modifications so you see here the blue that goes to uh west of 114 is the existing pathway that will be modified uh you'll see a new rain Garden uh at the uh South West corner of the site for 114 you'll see the uh new work for the accessible ramp at the northeast corner of 116 you'll see some new trees planted between one 114 and 116 uh those are uh really to provide some privacy between the business use at 116 and the residential use at 114 you'll also see some uh bits of low screening planting at the corners of some of the buildings 112 114 116 and around the location for the uh trash bins uh which are on that curved Road north of 112 those are all to provide just visual screening to to those particular uh air conditioning condensers and then you'll see some in the yellow color which were previously approved but are not being constructed and so there's a slight perious credit to that and Tomos can answer any questions around that okay so that's Ron you mention can you hear me okay yeah yeah yeah yeah um you mentioned the plantings between 114 and 116 in the HPC comment report they mentioned um to see if we could shift it slightly a little bit one way or the other to kind of open up that view and that's something that we're willing to do correct yeah yes we're we're going to do that we're going to slide a little bit closer to 116 not too close so that 116 doesn't feel sort of that still has daylight into that Western elevation but that will open up a little bit of a Vista uh between 114 and that grouping of trees with which uh we agree is a a good thing to be able to see that house from uh Prospect Avenue thank you and their other comment was with the Private Hedge to maintained at a height of three feet and I have no objection to that either that's right we will we will do that that's correct okay thank you all right thank you uh slide 10 uh slide nine this is the vehicular circulation on the site we've added a couple additional Ada parking in the shared parking which is at the Northern end of the site behind 112 14 116 and also behind 120 and the relocated 91 Prospect um you'll see there this is really um showing the the movement along east and west on Prospect Avenue North and South along the road that uh provides access to the parking garage to the west of the site and then on the northern part of the site and it there's a bit of a squiggle here at the very far northern part of the site that's a fire lane that has to be maintained and uh gives access to the back side the of a of our uh building there between the backside of that house of of the houses on Prospect on on Murray place all right slide uh 10 shows The Pedestrian circulation uh it does show the Ada routes in Blue uh we have we're able to use the grades to our advantage to get access to 112 we were not able to use the great store advantage to get access to 116 therefore that requests for the accessibility ramp on the northeast corner of 116 uh there are Pathways that crisscross the site from between the parking lot on the North and Prospect avue on the south and then the main East West uh pedestrian path is on the north side of the parking lot that connects the Murray Place Neighborhood over to the campuses continues across the northern side of the parking garage through the aner center and over to Olden Street there are um some stairs that are shown on the on the site plan um as well at as some of the entrances to the buildings particularly 114 okay now next slide is slide 11 this one uh shows the I'm going to summarize come of some of the Landscaping strategies and I'm going to turn over to Stu who will present the sort of landscape strategy for the site so I just wanted to point out that uh three replacement trees are required by the ordinance um and that um there has been one uh 32 inch dbh tree requiring replacement at the at the location of the accessible ramp that we've talked about there is another uh tree here label 251 on the slide that was that was a tree that was uh had died prior to this application and had been removed prior to this application but um we will we are providing uh 19 new trees although only seven are required by the ordinance um now slide uh 12 shows the U the different types of trees and maybe I should let Stone jump in here and describe the types of trees so if you can take it from here sure through slide 17 and just ask me to change the slides and I'll do that for you sure uh so slide 12 uh this is the uh the the summary of the proposed tree and shr planting so yes excuse me for interrupting I I think we need to qualify you yeah uh so my name is tomes uh I'm a director at the field operations uh landscape Architecture Firm based in New York I have a of landscape architecture from University of Pennsylvania I've been practicing landscape architecture over 18 years and I'm registered in New Jersey as well as in Pennsylvania thank you very much we accept your qualifications thank you uh so going back to the slide 12 uh this is the summary of the proposed tree and Sh planting uh as Ron just mentioned we are proposing 19 trees along with along with the 52 shrubs and most of the the the trees are on both sides of the the building 112 to provide buer for the building as well as the Define the edge of the site and a few trees are proposed between the building 114 and building 116 again to provide a buffer between uh two buildings and the proposed sh planting we scen the trash beIN in back of the site uh with Bayberry and then a new hbx structure outside each building with the inkberry and go in last Tre uh again you know as Ron mentioned we are proposing four Street trees which are uh uh Eastern uh the the red butt uh and prev hch to continue the Prospect Avenue streetcape character uh next please run uh slide 13 uh showing the proposed tree and Sh pette including the uh yellow OT and canopy tree and a few uh flowering species such as the uh red butt and Sweet Bay Magnolia and cornifer including the holy and qu Spruce and then also the the uh uh for different types of the shrubs mainly for the screening and the hatch uh in front of the site uh next please slide 14 uh moving on to the ground cover planting so the area around the building 112 uh will be planted with ground cover plants uh which is the continuation of the landscape from the adjacent site West and the front of the site will be long uh following other properties landscape along the Prospect Avenue except for the uh the rain Garden proposed at the southwest corner of the building r 14 which will be planted with ground cover plants uh next please uh slide uh 15 yes uh showing the proposed ground Cara planting pilette so we choose the uh grasses and perals uh that are relatively easy to maintain but the same time something you know uh that can provide seasonal interest through the the flowers and foliage uh next please slide 16 uh so this slide is showing a summary of the proposed site materials and elements uh the r discussed earlier uh so the walkway to both building 114 and 116 will be paved with blue stone and the path uh running along the west uh edge of the site will be PO asphal for stor Water Management uh which uh Tom will discuss in a bit and the mail box is proposed at the northwest corner of the site to serve all the stre buildings uh and lastly the a part of the path will be lit with B out lights for safety which are shown as a uh the small red dots uh next please next yeah next yeah yes so tom o can you jump in and uh be qualified here yep Tom can you tell us your uh education and your licensing I have a uh BS in civil engineering from Lehigh University I've had my uh professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey since 1985 and I U presented before this board previously thanks Mr OA we accept your qualifications thank you uh the storm water management and Ron went over it uh quickly the the concept was um that certain impervious surfaces were removed for example at 112 the amber colored walkways were removed from the site uh the uh purple color at the rear of 114 was removed uh we have uh uh blue stone pavement uh from Prospect up to both 114 and 116 um and one of the major strategies is that the net increase in impervious surface for this site was 62 square feet uh that is tent amount to about 40% of one parking space so keep in mind 62 square feet uh we have uh the rain Garden that's located in the southwest portion of uh building 114 uh that provides uh uh 626 cubic feet of uh storage and treatment and then the other big thing that we did out here is the existing standard bituminous pavement is being replaced with porest pavement uh and stone storage on that and we're providing uh 582 square feet of porest pavement uh which both these strategies for the minor increase in imperious surface uh well exceeds the requirement um is there any questions thank you thank you above and beyond is almost always good thank you Tom Right welcome moving on to slide 18 for the next couple slides we'll talk about the sidey uh variants uh as I think has been summarized uh there is a 25t side yard variance required on the east side of the of the site the existing building at 116 currently has an 11 11 foot3 setback and so as Christopher summarized we're uh requesting relief to allow for the setback of the accessible ramp at 14 feet 2 in which does not increase the degree of non-compliance of the site um so the uh M states that a bulk Vari variance may be regranted if the board finds that um the purpose of the ml would be Advanced by granting the variance and that the benefits of the bulk variance relief would be substantially outweighed by any detriment we believe the benefits are to uh support the rehabilitation of the of the houses uh to enable access and equity for for different abled users to the buildings and to support the street State's character because the uh ramp at 116 will not be visible from the street so that's that goes to supporting the desirable visual environment through creative de development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement granting the various Varan request would uh not create a substantial detriment as we've said the existing house is already located within the setback the pro proposed ramp is further away from the existing property line and the proposed ramp is not visible from Prospect Avenue we can certainly talk about this more in discussion slide 19 um I think summarizes uh some of those same points but it it it shows the uh the the highlights the location of that ramp at the north east corner of the site and it states that it will not extend beyond the existing uh facade of the building that particularly on toward the toward the East um and it allows us to uh really work with the existing house uh cir 1880s and maintain as much as possible the intact uh character of that Victorian housing this is a slide 20 this is a detail of the ramp uh in that northwest corner you'll see that there are a set of stairs that come up to the North and then the ramp sits to the uh a little bit to the east of that with one switch back and then provides access to a vestibule at the back side of the house which then enters into the kitchen part of the house um this is to remind you this is being us for offices but this is still the the uh a kitchen is still desirable in that space uh slide 21 shows elevations of the ramp uh on the left is the East Elevation uh that shows the uh the grade uh from the north sloping back and and returning to that porch that I talked about you'll notice there's a slight uh concrete foundation obviously to protect the wood rot at the where the where the ramp meets the ground so it's a wooden ramp which sits on a slight triangle of concrete and to the west of to the south of that is a lattice that is also screened to prevent rodent or insect entrance below that ramp and then the image on the right is the northern um elevation of the house that simply shows the same conditions but it does show how the ramp sits away from the the Far Eastern side of the property and the street Beyond so now on slide next few slides I'm going to talk a little bit about the enhancements to the uh the architecture uh and these are summarized by the report from the historic preservation commission uh in general we're doing everything we can to comply with the we are complying with the secretary of interior standards for historic places uh slide 23 gives a Strate some of the strategies that we're employing here to comply with those standards we're retaining as much exterior historic fabric as possible where new alterations are required they will be reversed ible so they can be removed in the future without damage to that historical fabric uh we will recreate missing elements where we know the information but we will not recreate them where we do where they're based on conjecture we will remove previous inappropriate interventions we will restore their character defining elements and features at each house and we will install window inserts that retain the historic fabric but are also reversible those are for um uh thermal performance and sustainability goals and we will use historically appropriate paint colors uh and and direction from reference materials of the period those are the strategies slide 24 uh is a shows a plan the different plans of 11 12 Prospect uh this will be converted to five different apartments uh the uh accessible first floor is made possible by this ramp that sneaks in along the southwest corner of the building and comes up to to the entry porch and enters the building and allows the first floor of these of these units of the of the building with two units one to the west and one to the east to be accessible uh the other levels are not accessible uh but uh we get we get accessible units at the ground level the the uh slide 25 shows some of the elevations the South and the north elevations I'll just summarize some of the key modifications we went through these in detail with the preservation commission uh but the street facade is largely unchanged doors will be painted white to match the early photographs instead of the current stain chimney caps will be added but they're low Prof profile and will not have any visual impact an exhaust fan will be added to the upper flat roof you can see it right here but it's set back from the edge of the roof and would not be visible from the street and a new uh bronze uh railing will be added at the middle of the steps to comply with code um and pretty similar strategies on the uh North elevation on the West and East elevations now we're on slide 26 um non-historic sash will be removed and new window search will be installed that will match the original mton patterns uh a side door uh and steps will be eliminated and new windows will be installed to match the adjacent Windows two new two existing double hung windows will be converted into casement windows for egress and fire escape code requirements and the M pattern on those windows will replicate those of a double hung window slide 27 shows the plans of 114 Prospect this is also uh two different apartments one on each floor um and slide 28 I'll summarize again some of the key strategies and features of the of the renovation the modifications include a front uh um porch and railing which is deteriorated will be rebuilt to match the existing because we know those conditions uh the porch was reconstructed in the 1980s the original front door will be restored uh we have evidence uh of that there were penals on all the windows but shutters only existed on the front and this is demonstrated from a 1911 photo that showed all the windows that had shutters so we're adding back shutters to all the windows again a Chimney Cap will be added and similar to with the uh other house it'll be a low profile will not have a visual impact slide 19 shows the north and west elevations um and you'll can see fin the same strategies and the historic uh colors that we're using for this building slide 30 shows the floor plans of 116 Prospect as we mentioned this will be used uh for offices and we'll have the ground floor accessible um the uh the bay window has uh here's on slide 31 now shows the South elevation on the left which has the bay window and the East Elevation that bay window has currently non-matching double hung Windows these will be replaced with casement windows to match the catalog image for the building the existing modern door will be replaced and a new door will be similar to the catalog image on the side elevation East Elevation the side porch was enclosed and a second story has been added at an unknown time and the re p and the rear porch was enclosed also at an unknown time and again you'll see the historic color uh strategy for the building slide 32 shows the north and west elevations of 116 Prospect again the non original windows with mutton patterns will be replaced with new insert windows with mutton patterns that match the original um and then slide 33 just as a summary of some our sustainability strategies uh new por Pavements as we've just discussed uh insulating the exterior envelope the new adding the new window inserts uh new high efficiency Plumbing fixtures high efficienc high efficiency mechanical systems and the landscape strategies including rain Gardens and storm water management techniques that brings us to slide 34 which is the end of our presentation I'm going to stop sharing and then we'll be happy to have a discussion and answer any question questions and I can pull up any any of the slides that you are interested in thanks uh very much Ron Mccoy David Cohen yeah thanks a very complete presentation I think the only thing that um I took note of that was in staff reports that you did not address um I believe Dan Dober milski suggested there might be some concern about the multi-trunk red bud uh species selection for the street trees and uh i' like to hear um you're thinking about that I think yes uh I think there was some discrepancy between what was shown on the draw if you look at the drawing it'll show a a multi multi trunk tree so Dan was very um accurate in reading the drawing and seeing that we're multi multiun multi trunks but if you look at the specifications it's a single trunk tree so it will be a single trunk red bug red and not a multi-trunk red bud great thank you good yeah thank you for that um I had a a quick question um about U I guess this is for Mr beso um or or any of you do you install um irrigation systems I just you know was noticing some of the plantings that particularly the Cardinal flower caught my eye and I know they um don't like to get super dry and just wonder you know given circumstances in the world today whether you have drip drip system or something like that that you typically install with um right I think here it depends on the scale of the project so for this project we didn't include irrigation just because it's relatively small you know I mean compared to other project like for example usncs so we don't have a permanent irrigation system but we have actually uh one year uh landscape maintenance contract with the contractor so they're supposed to maintain you know all those plants at least for one year and then you know after one year the plants will probably establish so you know I you may still need the uh uh the Water Manu but uh we don't think uh this requires the permanent irrigation system and is that actually now that I'm thinking of it is the Cardinal flower spec for the rain Garden yes is it one of the rain garden plants okay that all right got it yeah um also had a question about um a power and electricity for the buildings are these being are these running off of the University's geothermal system or do you have separate electric and gas hookups out of just asking out of curiosity these are not connected to the GE exchange system these These are independent homes yeah so they're they're off that system okay it would heroic it would have been a very heroic effort to bring the utilities all the way Underground Across the street for these small bits of houses well we know um from other activity associated with this that you're fully capable of heroic effort not that I'm suggesting that that that should have been one of them um I did watch the um a court Club move across the street and it was super super interesting and fun and impressive and um so yeah heroic one might call it heroic which we we we we choose our moments of heroism carefully uh other questions from from board members or staff or any other comments from from staff um or from um Julie capoli on behalf of HPC Julie yeah um I just wanted to say I think Elizabeth is here too um that we were extremely pleased with the presentation uh we were there in person so we were able to see paint samples and we were able to see all kinds of samples that were brought to the meeting um very very enthusiastic about this work being done um very appreciative and yeah the concern was um the Landscaping is beautiful but um just a concern not to obscure the view of 112 in the back since it's such a gem sorry um was the were changes made in order to um uh respond to that concern or request that yeah we that's the the point that uh Chris asked us to touch on earlier that we we will move those trees um closer to the east closer to the 116 property um uh close enough that we're not obscuring or blocking important daylight but just enough to open up the view corridor a bit more from Prospect Avenue to the back of the site to see 11 110 112 I'm sorry yeah yeah it was um it was really good to see Julie the the recommendation from HPC because it was was so enthusiastic and you know those are those are fun to read um um Miss Kim Elizabeth Kim yes so just to um chime in on Julie's comment I think that HPC was really excited to see this application because their design team did an excellent job you know they presented all the samples all the material all of the uh analysis they filed the Secretary of interior um standards they um did a historic paint analysis which was great to hear about and to read about and they were able to find the um the um the um um the sample of the um the house um that they to yes they were able to um restore some of the original penetrations um you know and so they they had something to fall back on as far as what they were able to replicate and retain and uh preserve but um all their work for um replacement in kind and appropriate um installation of inserts which was going to retain the original framing um that was really appreciated by HBC and they love if there were more applications like this to make their work easy so we really thank the university for their efforts on this thank you thanks Miss Kim uh Miss capazo oh yeah I just wanted to um hopefully we'll get to public comment I think Clifford zinc is in the public and he attended our meeting he had some great comments as well yes I I um we we it's a great segue to public comment um if other board members don't have uh questions uh Mr Lesco and then Mr Weissman uh yes thank you madam chair um I just want to address two comments from the staff reports uh the first is from Mr Dober milky's report and he's not able to be here tonight um but his first comment was regarding the uh uh new utility improvements and some trenching that might need to happen um and he ultimately recommended having uh a meeting with staff uh if this is approved uh to review potential conflicts at the site um so I know we're not at conditions yet but wanted to see the University's thoughts on that um yes and I think what we can say is that we could show on the plans our tree protection which wasn't shown so that may uh resolve some of the questions that he had with the conflicts so the plans itself didn't show our tree protection plan and I think that's going to go a long way to um you know avoid some conflicts but um Christopher does does the University object what Dan was suggesting in terms of an on-site review and modifications as necessary no that was just okay great thank you uh excellent so and then just the second one was from my report uh you mentioned earlier uh the condition of approval from the uh first go around regarding submitting an application to the state historic president reservation office for the state and National register and that was ongoing um so the other comment I had was the condition related to submitting the names of Irwin panovski and Oliver Strunk to the Princeton University committee on naming for plaques on the houses that they lived in uh it was noted though in that application that that's obviously um with the university has the ultimate discretion over that uh so I just want to see where the uh what the status is of that so go ahead Christopher I was just going to say I can confirm um from the design team that the recommendation or the request to acknowledge the residents there was referred to the committee on naming um recommendations from the committee go directly from the committee to the Board of Trustees and any whether it's this plaque or any other naming um would be announced by the Board of Trustees um so we did meet Our obligation to make that referral and now the process is between the committee and the Board of Trustees thank you great um Dan Weissman thank you madam chair just just one comment uh we had a request to replace the entire sidewalk along the Prospect Avenue Frontage uh due to the utility connections there's multiple being made um and the request is basically taken along the entire lot Frontage to to meet the 91 Prospect Avenue new sidewalk relocation and Dan um that set forth in your section for and Derek's 4.0 um Jay the staff comment so that should be a condition at least you're recommending it that would be the recommendation wondering if any any objection no objection on behalf of the applicant okay and Dan just the uh the other conditions you're recommending are set forth in 6. oh the additional staff comments one two what about three three as well or has that been resolved uh if three can be incorporated it's it's more just uh informational okay and Christopher any objection no objection I did um um Jerry I I did want to make uh one other request because um timing is sensitive and we would like to get moving on some of the work that we um that the board if they're so inclined to approve also consider early start our early start request here as they done another application this one would deal with you know some of the items on the site like utility work um interior demo and and interior framing which you really don't need to get before the zoning board but we would like to get started as soon as possible so we would like to work for on with staff to determine what early start work we can do immediately okay and be user language that we used in for our approvals yes yeah it would be subject I think the way you word it is subject to the review of the land use review and of the land use engineer okay good thank you thank you Dan any issues with that no no issues okay I'm sure we'll have uh members of the public who wish to um share some thoughts um I want to again thank the historic preservation commission the staff and um assorted local experts and stakeholders whose work on this was just absolutely critical and um so with that um I would ask that if there are members of the public who wish to speak um now is the time to raise your hand I believe um miss that uh Carrie might already be bringing over Mr zinc yes anyway um I see at least one other hand go up two three uh so Now's the Time to raise your hand and we'll take we'll bring people o order over excuse me in the order in which hands are raised and um we will swear you in and then start the the clock uh after you've been sworn in welcome Mr zinc uh thank you u m Clifford if you can raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth I do so SW or affirm thank you uh congratulations to Ron and everyone on your team uh this has really turned out to be an exemplary project uh the exterior rehab following the Secretary of the Interior standards including the team's research on the old catalog of what the building was based on uh restoring shutters that you don't you wouldn't be required to do uh the careful work of the windows including uh turning one fire exit window to match the um the pattern of the mtons it's it's all pretty um it's all pretty exemplary uh and heroic and uh I I want to thank you for all the great effort that everybody's put into this and also for um being willing to move the tree slightly to make uh 112 a little more visible so thinking back three years ago there was a lot of controversy here on on this project and the three houses could have been could have been lost completely and here we are today uh seven Apartments have been preserved which is very important in town uh the university has I don't know many how many square feet 1500 or 2,000 square feet of office space to use and these buildings are now going to be um models of preservation the project has gone from being a controversy into a model outcome and I think I really appreciate everybody's contribution to that I think it shows uh the benefit of community engagement the university uh while there was some disagreement always had Ron your door was always open the dialogue was open and we really appreciate that that you that you were open to community engagement and I would say the same about the planning board um Madam chair uh you were very open also to community input on this project and I think uh I think it really demonstrates uh the benefit of that Justin I want to thank you for just tonight following up on um on the uh expansion of the historic district to include these three buildings uh and also um uh uh what was the other one that you uh asked about um I forget what you had a second signage the plaques the plaque the signage for the for the notable professors that were here so so I want to thank everybody for to everybody who was involved in this effort and of course HPC Julie capoli and Kim Elizabeth Kim for everything the h PC has done to make this really a model project I think I think it sets a a new standard for preservation in Princeton so thank you for everybody on the screen and everybody else who contributed to this outcome thank you Mr zinc um ever so much your input has been invaluable thank you can I I would also say thank you and I just have to say Stephanie Valentine is is quietly hidden but her and her firm of ALS did a fantastic job on this project thank you Stephanie okay who who do we have next Rebecca Radcliffe and then James B okay I'm sorry hi Miss R Cliff if you can um uh unmute yourself um and then Mr Muller will SAR you in she could raise your right hand Sandy Harrison sorry I I was not able to see you very well on my screen so thank you for changing correct correcting your name Mr Mr Muller will swear you in if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give be the truth you need to unmute yourself though okay yes there you go yes I do I do I'm sorry about the other name I'm borrowing my daughter's um Zoom so I didn't know it was still on her name um so I'm yeah I'm uh the chairman of a Princeton Prospect foundation and um Clifford uh referenced at the end of his eloquent uh thank yous about the controversy two and a half three years ago and how after you know about four four and a half months of public comments and concern about the fate of the uh three victorians that successful um agreement um came about and you know we're very grateful to the University for that to saving them and I there was a coalition is called the safe Prospect Coalition at the time very informal but it was well More Than A Thousand Towns people alumni my you know Prince Prospect foundation and some others that um were all involved in this and I guess I think it's fair to say that if they most of the people you know they were on the line now and saw the plans that they would be you know thrilled to see how you know thoughtful the efforts are in it for a full Rehabilitation and restoration and how substantial it is and you know um you know thank you very much for that I also um would like to just for the record say that it this beyond the saving of these uh you know um Queen Anne houses from you know late 19th century or so um that and what they mean in terms of just their charm and now there also be functional is that these are rarely historic um buildings you know there was reference to a plaque for example um you know 110 Prospect which is now 112 was the home to four two former eating clubs I just want this on the record and um the other uh two houses served as homes for distinguished University and faculty of uh The Institute of advanced studies um these were residences which welcomed refugees from Fascism and where celebrated Scholars and Lumin lived and gathered um over the past Century um most notably U art history giant Ed Irwin panovski who authored essential texts in the field um he fled uh Hitler's Germany and lived and in 114 and did many of his writings in the 1930s he served as a visiting lecturer at the University and 1935 he also became a professor at The Institute of advanced studies also Einstein report reportedly helped read to panofsky's wife when she was unable to sleep after Contracting a baffling a ailment in the um 1940s um just a couple of more comments here uh WS hexer was another Refugee from the Nazi Reich he spent his first night in the United States there renier Lee met him there and probably Einstein visited them uh Dr foma zeitlin zei t l n uh which was she was the um Generations leading scholar of ancient Greek literature and a recipient of a 2016 honorary doctorate from Prince University she lived for a long time at 114 Prospect and finally um Thomas Kaufman a renowned historian and Mar Marquan professor of Art and archaeology at the University I believe he's still in that capacity and he was a m member of this save Prospect found Coalition he lived thank you Mr Harrison okay so he lived at 116 Prospect for for um you know about 10 20 years so yes I remember he testified back in 2021 as well yes so those are my and you know these thank you okay thank you yes thank you very much and thank you for your involvement and commitment to this great outcome all the way okay James bash is n joining us hello yeah Mr bash if you could if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give would be the truth I do soone or affirmed thank you uh good evening uh planning board HPC and uh University uh friends um I too would like to commend the university for an excellent job in creating this thoughtful plan when we moved uh to Princeton 25 years ago my wife and I these three victorians were lovely and we enjoyed walking and riding by them almost every day watching their deterioration in recent years has been difficult but it is so heartening and thrilling honestly to read through this document and this plan and see how these elegant historic homes will be restored to their former Grandeur and put back into good use one morning in June 2021 when we were trying to figure out how to solve the impass on Prospect Avenue I was walking back home from town and I cut through the little Enclave of four victorians just behind the New York camera shop and Thomas site I've always loved walking through this little neighborhood especially at night it's like a time capsule from a different era that morning I talked with a couple who lived in one of these Charming victorians they told me how those homes used to actually be on William Street and were saved from the wrecking ball decades ago after a significant public outcry I had heard a little bit about this before and it seemed a relevant tale to what we were going through on Prospect so I went home and I looked up the whole story in the archives of town topics and the daily princetonian sure enough in 1977 six 19th century homes on William Street were slated to be demolished to make room for the University's new po laboratory however after after much Community discussion engagement and eventually compromise the university instead moved the four homes which could be relocated to the new area where we see them today these four victorians form Nassau Court behind Nassau Street which is used for faculty and staff housing and looks to newcomers as though it has been there forever what's more last year these four buildings underwent extensive renovations and look absolutely beautiful including new paint jobs with copper gutters and superb trim and molding work I encourage everyone to go and have a walk through there and admire their Restorations so I hope the university can employ the same team that did such a fine job on Nassau court for this new project to restore the family of three victorians on Prospect all in all what happened on William Street in the 1970s was a very similar story to what we experienced on Prospect Avenue the university wanted to expand its facilities and sought the best way to do this in Partnership and engagement with the community it's wonderful that we can often look to history and learn from the past to help inform the future thank you thank you Mr bash very much um are there other members of the public who wish to speak if so now is the time to virtually raise your hand and be brought over Kip Cherry can you bring her over um Carrie yes thank you Kip if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give it be the truth she I don't think she's uh she's up on the screen yet there we go Kip you need to unmute yourself would you raise your hand goad you swear affirm the testimony about to K will be the truth yes I do I just want to H thank everyone for letting me be a small part of all this um I think that the quality of the work uh has created a lot of Goodwill and I'm really excited about that um I want to call attention to one small thing that the chair happened to do I don't know whether you all remember but there was a bit of a tight spot for a while it was August and the chair decided it was time for a vacation and so the planning board took an extended vacation and that made a big difference so thank you for doing that and last I want to thank Q Wang uh Who Behind the Scenes is a very important force and um I I know that he has a lot to do with how things work out and and so I I want to thank him personally thank you very much thank you Miss Jerry uh the the record should reflect that the board does traditionally take the month of August uh not not to meet so um but it did come at a good time and I think the the uh that break I mean and the um and it did um you know provide for some very good uh conversations to happen productive conversations and so um yeah thank you Kip any other members of the public who wish to speak to this not seeing any other hands go up so I'll close the meeting to uh close the public comment portion of the meeting um of the hearing uh other questions or comments from board members seeing none I will just uh call out a a few words that were spoken that I couldn't agree with more one is thrilling and one is exemplary and I do see M as hand went up so uh Miss council president sax totally not um essential I just wanted to thank Jim bash for reminding me of those four houses on William Street and um of uh as I had discussed with him my very first Act of Civic engagement in this town was as a student at Community Park Elementary School and I wrote on behalf of to the town topics on behalf of saving those four houses and um so it was really meaningful for me then to be in the planning board um many many years later and to be involved in this very happy compromise in which we save these new houses and town and gown were able to um reach a compromise that worked out for both and I know I've said this before but this was um a model for for compromise in with both the university and municipality and um the planning board was instrumental in in forging that so thank you everybody especially Sandy Harrison and Clifford zinc and um and Jim bash and you know members of the public and Kip you know everyone who contributed to um making this um The Happy moment that we are now finally have reached so thanks yeah um our our former uh planner Michael leel also felt very strongly about this so I'm just tossing his name out there too um thank you Mia um any other comments and if not would someone like to oh I get I'm sorry we should go over um quickly review um conditions yes Mr meller right I'll first go through my notes and then the reports but it should not take very long yeah we talked about the the rose bud should be single trunk rather than multi-trunk trees should be moved to make is it one 12 is the one in the back correct yeah more visible um early site development subject review and approvals of the L use engineer then from Dan weissman's report we went over those and I don't I don't think I need to go over them again um from Dan Dober msk's report um that paragraph one about the tree uh the root protection um resolution in the the field um from Justin Leo's report um he suggested that that the uh um the board uh approve a condition that the landscape architect or Municipal arist review the final planting plan if approved and I would suggest we either do that would they have the landscape committee do it what would the pleasure of the board be on that if if if if I may add a comment yeah Mr we we would prefer to work with the arborist because it's a it's a much easier process than to schedule a meeting and go through that that we and we think it's a pretty simple plan and the arborist I think would be appropriate anybody have any cont feelings I support that okay so that's fine with that too um I I just want to I um since we're talking a little bit about Landscaping I believe that the revised landscape plan that the applicant that the university showed tonight reflects the movement the slight movement of those three trees oh doesn't it so we're not asking for further movement or are we I think there will be some slight movement in okay okay all right good not completely moving them I understand yep got it yeah we have a balance between the Comm um the residential use as well as the non-residential use so we need to have a buffer there but yes Shi yeah okay all right thank you go ahead Jerry that's it it's a minus I plan the one variance we discussed and the conditions we just went over and um Mr degia mentioned an early start does would that go into the resoltion I mentioned that in my oh sorry recitation of conditions okay good all right any uh final questions or comments from board members and if not Julie did I see your hand go up yeah I move uh approval with those conditions and the variance and the variance good thank you and who would like to second thank you Miss sax um roll call vote please Carrie Miss capoli yes Mr Cohen yes Mr McGowen yes Mr odonnell yes Miss saxs yes with pleasure Mr Taylor yes Miss Wilson Anderson yes Mrs Wilson yes MO carried thank youate your time thank you very much comments really look forward to um continuing to see it all come together thank you so much we do too thank you good night all right okay now we have to move Nat back and Nat and pal back uhhuh okay thank you Ian okay great so next up we have state Shore LLC this is continued from April 18th 2024 this is a minor subdivision with variances at 479 Jefferson Road Block 5408 lot one this is file number p2323 d403 Ms and um since we have we're taking this up after um changes have been made I don't think that we need a a long overview or maybe no Overview at all from maybe we want to go straight to we should I'm sorry chair Wilson we had to re notice for this hearing yeah uh so we um I sent everything to Mr Mueller he reviewed it um Jerry would you like to just um the notice is proper uh Carrie has indicated the proof of publication and service are in order and the board has jurisdiction great thanks thank you um Carrie your your um amplification is really high I know I know you've turned it down you could maybe could turn it down again um so Justin anything uh before we turn to Mr Kennedy to and the applicant to discuss the changes they've made that are responsive to staff and board and neighbor to some extent also neighbor um comments and concerns uh no not necessarily I think it would make sense for the applicant to describe uh the changes that they have and then uh any comments we might have after that right okay Mr Kennedy and while the notice was they needed to notice because of that clitch um basically the qualifications portion that's all been done and this is a continuation of that prior hearing okay so everyone who testified before and was qualified is still um under oath fully qualified so do you have any new we we Madam chair yes we have one uh the representative uh principal from the um applicant didn't testify last time so uh uh or um we we may want to just there was a question um in Mr Le's memo about asking one of the neighbors um uh if they were willing to sell and we I'd like to have him um sworn in just so we can get that testimony on the record about that occurring believe everyone was here last time let's do that now and and who is what the name of the person is it's uh it's and he may be on twice I believe one of the two it's pronounced or but u r um uh here he is I believe the second one is probably our architect uh probably using uh the applicants link but or if you uh see you've got your camera on um Mr Muller can swear you you raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony about to use will be the about to give will be the truth I do just want to airm and if you could um Again State your full name and spell your last name the first name is ug R and the last name is k a y p like Tom M like Mary a z like zebra I thank you okay go ahead Mr Kennedy all right well I want to thank you everyone again now Ryan Kennedy from the law firm of Stevens and Lee for the applicant estate Shore um feels like it's been a while since we were here um but we're we're happy to be back and and the our point of this evening for us um is to highlight uh the changes that we've made uh both to our presentation um and uh to the project that we believe are responsive uh to the board and um many but Madam chair you're you're correct I'm sure not all of the um neighbors um concerns or comments if you I'll recall um this is a minor subdivision with slightly under ex size Lots as to lot area we'll have an updated graphic that shows um uh really does a kind of survey of the larger neighborhood um not just one side of the street we'll talk about why one side of the street was kind of chosen last time uh but the larger neighborhood to show how how quite common these lot sizes are um and we think very importantly a redesigned home uh that faces addresses and uh honors the significant large setback on Jefferson that we heard um frankly was was such an important feature of this neighborhood um we we believe um with these changes um that the benefit of this project um aside from the planning H testimony that you heard last time um absolutely outweighs the as of right option there were some discussion uh at the end of the first meeting about talking about something that I usually don't like to talk about with applicants that is what else could be built here right what the large single family home or the almost as large um single family home at 5,000 square feet or a potentially 4,000 foot single family home and an Adu and an Adu and home that wouldn't necessarily face Jefferson un like we're able to do with um uh responding to the the board comments and would have uh significantly different setbacks um on the secondary Street uh because the accessory structures don't necessarily have the same setbacks as a home so there are some um uh additional benefits of uh having um the subdivision that we want to definitely walk through we also heard loud and clear that while proportionally f is part of the ordinance um we're walking away from that these are two 2500t homes they are um 20 5% floor area um we are also shown and designed uh homes that use uh not that do not utilize the graduated coverage numbers available for undersiz Lots so we're excited to show these to you um and as as a get-go before I open up our our first piece of um our our revised exhib from last time I'll U since or is here and just to get it out of the way um I'm going to ask him uh before we do our exhibits about speaking with uh the one uh neighbor to make sure that we we get on the record that we asked uh whether they're interested in in in selling additional lens or um if you don't mind if I ask you that now um did you approach the the neighbor on uh Jefferson uh before this project uh started or or some time ago and asked if they were interested in selling some additional land to you yes I did and they said no because if they do they will be uh they will not be complying in their home with the zoning so while we we thank you or um so while we did ask um we'll show as we go through our slides that because that home is actually only about 10 feet from the lot line uh the additional land granted even if it was possible would make them no would make them less non-conforming so actually it may not have been necessary to ask but we did and uh the answer was no um and ran could you go over um what the position of the applicant is with respect to that kind of request with respect to the other adjacent Lots absolutely so there are only uh two adjacent lots and uh when we show our slides we'll show you that one while one uh the one was approached on Jefferson uh is would technically from a lot area perspective have land to I suppose subdivide and sell um their home is already within the side yard setback so by granting that land it would create an additional non-conformity and the the other lot on the secondary Street side is already non-conforming as to lot area and with and it would not be possible for them to give more uh property uh to the applicant thank you um so with that uh last time we had one set of exhibits um we have another set tonight I suppose we could call this A2 uh it is different from what we did last time if if that's right I'll um yeah that's fine that'll be A2 and while I'm doing that I'll ask our engineer uh to unmute himself and uh he's already sworn in and um qualified so I won't bore us with that but uh I'll scroll down till I see Eric there we are so Eric as we did last time um and uh it is odd for me not to fully introduce you so I do appreciate uh in the interest of time um but first we can start kind of taking the board through again uh we're in the uh R six uh in the former Township that's an arrow kind of pointing to where the property is in the corner of uh Jefferson there correct uh then we've got the neighborhood view again um U moving to the slide number four uh kind of a street view showing the existing oversized lot and the the houses surrounding it correct right so let's get to the program here and and what we heard and talked about last time uh from the board so on the left that's the original subdivision uh proposal and on the right uh that's the revised uh subdivision uh plan and and uh sketch plan for the placement of the homes um if you want to just quickly Eric take us through the the main changes here of what we what we did between this and uh this time and gosh about a month and a half ago certainly uh so the exhibit that shown on the left hand side of the screen that was the original subdivision proposal where we were proposing two new residential dwelling with a detached garage and driveway both homes would access and front on Kyler both garages and drive WS would also access Kyler street directly or sorry Kyler Road directly based on comments that the board provided at the last meeting the applicant went back and we decided to redesign the Cornel lot the Cornel lot being uh the dwelling that's being proposed at the intersection of Jefferson and Kyler what we have done essentially is to rotate the house 90 degrees um so instead of uh the corner lot now which was previously proposed to front on on Kyler road that dwelling has been redesigned and rotate rotated 90° so the frontage is actually on Jefferson in addition to that what we have done is to move the dwelling further back into the property which would be uh along Kyler road so that the front setback or the prevailing front setback for the corner lot conforms to the Jefferson Road setback requirement Additionally the detached garage and driveway instead of accessing Kyler road now access is going be provided directly to Jefferson Road the driveway and the garage will be located on the Northerly side of the project of the property essentially what this design has done it has allowed us to eliminate the variants that the applicant previously sought for the setback requirement on Jefferson however by rotating the house 90 degrees and moving the house farther back into the property we were able to conform with that front setback requirement the prevailing setback however that in order to create uniformity uniformity uniformity along Kyler Road the dwelling now encroaches within the setback the prevailing setback on Kyler um currently the required prevailing setback is 34 feet on kylo road and the applicant is proposing 26.5 feet and that setback is measured from the right of way to the building line or the building side however that setback is in line with the new dwelling that's being proposed on Kyler Road uh that side of the dwelling on the corelot actually aligns with the front porch of the new dwelling that's being proposed that only has access to Kyler Road um in addition to that the applicant has also we have revised The Improv surface calculation and essentially in the r- Sig Zone the applicant has permitted 49.5% um respective coverage that's currently proposed is um approximately 31% for the Cornel lot which is the lot on Kyler and Jefferson roads and the other lot the interior lot uh the maximum coverage that's proposed is 30 and a half% and essentially that is the applicants revision to the proposal based on the comments that the board provided and comments that we heard from the public at the last meeting all right Eric before we leave this slide just a couple more questions about the Corner Jefferson lot that um because of this significantly large setback on um on Jefferson and the requirement for a lot that's less than 100 feet wide to have the driveway on this side um there's I guess additional reasons why it's uh encroaching slightly into that setback is that is that right that it's not quite as simple as just moving it um to the side a few more feet correct okay um moving on to the next slide we've got some uh renderings of the redesigned um home at the top that'll be on the corner of uh Jefferson is that correct and then below is the existing house proposed um uh for uh for the second lot that's correct um again moving on to our bulk table that the board had seen uh last time we still have that um small uh variance for a lot area but these Lots will otherwise conform in all other respect um and while we've eliminated the uh we feel quite significant um Jefferson Street setback issue there is while plus or minus 34 is required uh on the secondary Road um because many of these homes have front porches uh those front porches encroach into that so the design here uh is at 26.8 FT um which uh is lines up uh with that front porch um of the home next door and many of the others on the street and and in order to have the driveway and the compliant location um and and still have the the setback um those extra couple feet are are necessary is that fair to say Eric that's correct um we did a few other exhibits that kind of show the significance of that setback we kind of Drew that um 47 foot line uh down Jefferson to see you know how not you know obviously these are averages not every home complies with it uh but our design uh now will and you know we heard loud and clear from the board uh and the neighborhood that that Jefferson Corridor uh is of uh you know significance uh uh for for the neighborhood and uh we are happy to uh happy but uh you know we were we were took it back to the drawing board uh and and redesigned a new home for that front lot that that uh complies with that correct now Eric this next uh exhibit shows I guess the two houses the site plan here but then it kind of draws in uh the uh the secondary roads setback that we're coming close to um but for for context uh the the the remainder of the lots are kind of tight um and and well I say generally matching it is an average uh it it comes quite close and then with you're saying um the front line of the second front yard you know in the former Township everyone has two front yards so the uh the Kyer uh Road front yard um does actually match the compliant front porch location of the house next door correct um this is an exhibit that um every everyone perhaps remembers last time that we showed about the uh Lots being created and the undersized Lots on our side of the street happens to be where the tax map ended uh and we'll show you another slide that has a much more expansive uh view of the neighborhood to show all of the um significant number and predominant frankly of undersized Lots uh in the area but but um these ones here shown on our side of the street Are all uh some combination of UND sized as for width uh where 85 is required and area is that right Eric that's correct all right now zooming out a bit now we kind of have a bit of anomaly here but we kind of turn things sideways and frankly it's uh a bit of a challenge to stitch Princeton's chck Maps together but we we did our best um our projects up so whereas before we were just looking at this row of homes here um on our side the street we've now expanded it to a much bigger area uh in the zone and probably one of the questions we'll ask is gosh the the the block uh next or I guess to the south of the project that side of the street seems to be kind of a I don't know an island of Conformity um and as it turns out uh there is a private deed restriction on many of those properties keeping them from being subdivided that is not applicable to the rest of uh uh the neighborhood uh that perhaps explains uh some of of the difference and you can kind of see that line on our side of the street uh with uh smaller Lots many of whom are non-conforming and smaller than what we're proposing um not conforming in with where ours are for example um then the uh south side of the street uh where they uh they do predominantly uh conform but are subject to uh uh private deed restriction uh that uh has been uh litigated to uh no success for those who are looking to eliminate it I'll put it that way um with that Eric uh um I'll see if the board uh or any presss have any uh questions for engineer and then I'd like to get into a a recap a brief one of our planning testimony uh Mr leco uh yes thanks Madam chair um I have a question or just a general concern about the uh side the prevailing front yard setback variants on Kyler um you testified to some of the reasons why uh you believe that's correct uh Mr rubar uh to ask for that but I'm not seeing other porches on that on Kyler over there except for the one you've proposed in the one right next to it so can you explain more about where these other porches are or how the side of a building uh you know lining up with porches is is kind of uh desirable so generally when you're looking at a streetscape even an expanded streetscape you're looking at where the building line typically is and yes I do agree that this is the side of a building uh that we're looking at as compared to the side an open porch but that still represents where the actual structure is and many times when you're looking along that street you're seeing the structure you're not necessarily seeing the various parts of the structure so we do believe that although the building itself is encroaching within that front prevailing setback having some uniformity along the street is going to help to maintain that streetcape in the area but if there are no other porches I mean couldn't you logically say the porch on the Eastern lot should be the whole building should be pushed back so then this building could be pushed back to be in line with it and keep the prevailing setback I just don't see how kind of creating this condition is the basis for a variance on the other lot well I'll just interject that I don't I don't we were suggesting that was the basis we were just noting that from a distance perspective that five additional feet uh happens to be the front of the front porch and the same distance to the street uh for the house the compliant house uh next door not not that there's some pattern of uh and of course this is the only corner lot on the street um or at least this pardon me the only corner lot setback that we're talking about on this side street the other um the other homes front uh to to Kyler down the street so this is a kind of a unique position of being um having addressing this um this particular front yard on this side of the street um but I'll just suggest that from our Engineers testimony that the reasons were for necessarily for lot placement and that the the comments on front porch were more about compatibility okay thank you for clarifying Mr Cohen I have two um questions I guess first I know one of the other areas of comment and concern from Neighbors at the last meeting did have to do with storm water and there is an increase even though you're complying with the standards of what impervious is permitted on these Lots um you are uh at least in a situation where you're a small project you're not an exempt project due to increase in coverage and I'm curious if you could tell us a little bit about how you're intending to manage manage the storm water I know this is a subdivision it's not a site plan application but I'd like to hear a little bit about uh what measures you're going to be taking to deal with storm water and then I'll go ahead and and ask my other question you can you know take them one at a time but it seems to me the problem with the front yard setback on Kyler is created by putting the driveway um fronting Jefferson and certainly in our neighborhood character standards you know uh developers are encouraged even on Corner Lots uh to put the driveway you know coming into the sidey guard rather than you know coming into the front yard and I'm curious if you've looked at all especially like if you were to do a shared driveway and you would also even be allowed to have the the garages um right on the property line um by my memory of the of the neighborhood standards you could really free up a lot of flexibility and how you use the space on the lot uh not need the front yard setback for the corner building and uh reduced you know impervious coverage even further and I'd just like to know whether you gave that a design approach any consideration so Eric but but before you start just on the second question I hope I'll guide you to answer that one first uh because not that not the storm water is ever easy but I I know you'll you'll be able to you know because we've looked at the storm water um on the site um quite a bit at least conceptually um so one under the D you're you're 100% correct that there is this idea um you know in in neighborhood character though uh we look through it it is for you know UND maybe not undersized but for what they what it's defined is small lot so less than 75 uh feet in in WID um and at some point actually might have been even required if we were small enough to do that uh it's lot is not unique but maybe unique in in terms of neighborhood character in that it is square um and with that um predominant and deep Jefferson setback um even I think Eric might recount um you know as by doing the share driveway um you're not left with very you know by respecting that um setback the lot is quite unique in that there is not much of a building envelope you know in this case from left to right you know Jefferson front to back that even with a shared driveway um having the room for uh for you know two cars example to to flare out you're not really left with much because you know while that allows for um setback relief for driveway you still have to have room for the parking you know essentially on your side and it does limit and almost kind of remove almost all kind of backyard and know with two front yards which is front which is back but with Jefferson being the front and the front of the house it does eliminate a lot of that backyard opportunity um both by having the driveway there and even with the shared driveway scenario um so uh Eric just apology for for for jumping in but you know we had talked we had looked up just before the meeting the refreshed ourselves on the neighborhood character rules I just wanted to get that inv first before before you answered so apologies for jumping in no problem Ryan so as Ryan indicated it's when we did look at the neighborhood character trying to create this cornal lot given the setbacks that we have if access was taken to Jeff to Kyler in Li of Jefferson Road it basically eliminates the entire rare yard for the corner lot um because given where the garage would be located where the driveway would have to be located it leaves you virtually no backyard essentially you're the back of the house because the house still fronts on Jefferson you're going to have almost no usable area between the house and the driveway considering the driveway itself would have to be separated from the property line the garage itself would be set back also there would be virtually no opportunity for any type of outdoor utility of the space that exists in that area um so that was one of the consideration in actually in addition to the ordinances to not even considering that um to try to create or at least provide a dwelling with a backyard and some open space that can be used um your second question regarding storm water we did take a look at the what we would do regarding storm water and this project once if the board approves it and when building permits are applied for it is going to be subject to the minor storm water provision in the municipal ordinance and presently storm water generally FL flows from this property from what would be the north essentially in both directions towards Jefferson and also towards Kyler um so what we've normally done for these minor developments or the minor storm water projects in Princeton are typically either rain Gardens underground infiltration basins um we've even looked at prus Pavements and once we get to that point where we're designing the actual site depending upon what type of soils we have on the property How Deep The groundwater table is we'll decide which one of those green bmps the applicant is going to utilize to provide storm water control but we anticipate being able to comply with all of the minor storm water Provisions in the Princeton in Princeton's ordinance uh David you're muted that's okay I was only saying thank you nothing important okay um I have a a couple of questions um uh the driveway onto Jefferson uh right along the um northern lot line I guess it is are you removing any trees in order to put that driveway in I can see you know on aerial maps that there are trees there I don't know whether they're on this property or the neighboring property uh I'm just uh concerned about screening um since the neighbor's house is uh so close to the lot line already so the trees appears to be on the neighbor property on the neighboring property to the north of us um part of our original survey work for the project included locating the trees on this property and we are showing all of the trees that exist on this lot that's in question and in this particular area where the driveway and the garage is going to be constructed only there's a tree towards the back of the property in that northeasterly corner where the garage is being proposed it's going to be removed however the driveway itself doesn't require any tree removal on this side well you'll need to be very careful to protect the roots of the trees that are right on the property line uh or very close to the property line on the neighboring property that's um really important thing to do so uh you'll need to consult with the arborist and maybe our landscape architect um when we I expect put that in as a a condition if we get to that point um I also wanted to ask about um well maybe I'm getting ahead of myself about um a bedroom question but on the sign um excuse me on the plan here I think that you show a sidewalk on Jefferson is that correct are you planning to construct a sidewalk I don't think there are sidewalks on Jefferson right there are there or am I wrong about that no there currently does exist a sidewalk on Jefferson and oh okay excuse me all right and not but not on Kyler and you don't intend to um put a sidewalk along Kyler I know it's not in our sidewalk plan I just want to confirm what your intention is correct there's no sidewalk proposed on Kyler yeah okay um are there other questions from board members Mr Kennedy do you have uh any other testimony to I I would um I it'll be short um but I would like to have our um our planner back just to just to summarize we do have a slightly different variance situation I just want to make sure that uh the record is is clear that you know what we have got here so Susan if you uh would turn your camera on I'll have to scroll through hi it's Barbara I'm here thank you now if you I'm sorry Barbara when I when I with when the uh when the screen is covering up everyone's faces I uh I um I start looking at someone else and thinking um I'm so apologies um so a couple things before you start you know we we we talked a little bit about at the beginning at least from a summary perspective what could go here and what we'd preer you know why we prefer this plan with two smaller homes that are more in keeping with the the the current neighborhood versus one really big one um and and then one other big piece of this was would would be the you know we plan or the condition to orient the um Jefferson lot uh to Jefferson to match the rest of the street and and ultimately the kind of as of right alternative would be um possibly a 5,000 ft house here or a 4,000 fo home with a th000 squ foot Adu that don't necessarily while they would respect the setbacks without a variance um would not necessarily have to be oriented in any particular way um um so with that maybe just briefly remind the board of of of the your your testimony about uh the size particularly for the neighborhood and the uh the reasons for this and and I'll I'll um thank that we we did talk about being brief I know that we we already and I acknowledge I'm still under oath from the last hearing correct and so uh just briefly as described uh the applicant did change the application so that the uh home on proposed lot 1.01 would be oriented towards Jefferson Road um and this created a a side yard setback or a front yard setback I'm sorry along Kyler Road um looking back at the application and the I came to notice that the actually um when the application was filed this uh proposal was um the 2023 master plan had not yet been adopted uh so I looked at the prior 2013 and 2017 and I noticed that they talk about the importance of neighborhood character and they also talk about the impacts of the creation of oversized homes in neighborhoods and how that disrupts uh a neighborhood character so in this instance the subdivision would result in two homes that are more in line with the overall character of this portion of the Community um with respect to the setback along Kyler Road um yes it's more in line with the porch of the neighboring property but I also want to remind that that neighboring property is part of this application so it respects uh established open air light open air light air and open space in the neighborhood and the person uh uh who would be most impacted would actually be the portion that the second home that is part of this application um in that respect some of those negative impacts are mitigated um therefore uh with the respect to the lot sizes I believe it does bring it back into closer Conformity with the neighborhood particularly along Kyler Road and presents a reinvestment into this portion of the community were there thank you Barbara you know and and everything uh your prior testimony still Rings true other than those uh revisions correct thank you thank you uh Madam chair I'm happy to answer anything else anything else Mr Kennedy no that that that is that is our testimony thank you okay um and um so why why would why wouldn't you uh can you pull that image back up could you um shrink the footprint of the home that runts on Jefferson in order [Music] to uh avoid the variance along Kyler I'll um Erica let's see if you can you can field that one and I'll apologize me go back to the view that would show this a little bit better here yeah I guess the question is could could um uh either site or other designs be done to to shrink the size of or the footprint of um the Jefferson home uh in order to avoid the you know five foot setback issue that we have so theoretically you could reduce the footprint of the dwelling to make it conforming to the setback I mean we could certainly build a smaller house um however in building a smaller house then again it goes back to the average or the sizes of the dwellings that are in the neighborhood uh we do believe that this is a little bit more in keeping with that additionally if you were to change the footprint um part of what the applicant is trying to do is to create some usable rare yard or a backyard space for this house as most residential dwellings typically will have a backyard or some open space where the occupants can dwell outside um if we were to adjust the footprint so that we could eliminate that front setback on Kyler it'll require to maintain the same square footage of the house making the house a little bit deeper from Jefferson in an easterly Direction which by doing that again we're reducing that rare yard that open space that's actually available for the applicant to use for any sort of outdoor activity and I I do appreciate that you talked about um 25% maximum F respecting that um I think that I also read in the materials that you're that these homes are meant to be five bedroomroom four B Homes which um you know that's a that's that's a lot of space and I'm not I I don't mean to say that in order to you know um cast judgment on the uh or aspersions or whatever whatever on the design I'm just saying that it might be bigger than it needs to be and you're you're creating a hardship or a a um a variance where you may not need to that's my point so I don't know what kind of it it may be just something for the board to discuss later on um I see David you're leaning forward in your chair so maybe you have a a comment to to make stop stammering it's yeah it's a just a reflection on on your suggestion and I think that there are two possibilities one is to shrink the size of the the structure which would be you could do and keep a backyard although albeit small one can also reconfigure the ground floor of or both floors of the of the structure so that it fits within the envelope and doesn't shrink it at all it can fully use the available F but I think in that case you would lose the backyard so I'm just you know giving a little um reflection for where the board might want to go with its discussion of this maybe when we get back from a break if we're going to take a break you know before we hear the public comment um but I think when we do get around to discussing it that's a good way to uh to frame it sort of the alternative between a smaller house or a backyard or the variance you know those are three options right okay thank you for that that's helpful um and are there any other uh questions or comments from board members before we break because I think I appreciate you're bringing that up David it's uh we uh traditionally do break right around now nine o'clock for 10 minutes or so I'm not seeing any hands go up and so let's um let's reconvene at uh 9:10 or 911 um and I will see you then thanks I have one other question thank you Carrie I have one other question I would like to um pose and maybe other board members do too um and I have to keep reminding myself this is a a subdivision and not a site plan application um but I do you know be you know because there are requests for variances and stuff but one thing that occurs to me is to ask about Street trees um and I know that there are additional trees that are between the homes and the streets even if they're not um in a line or with other Street trees because I I believe Kyler you know does not have an M of Street trees at least on the North side I can't remember the South Side I don't think the south side either um so is there um can you speak a little bit to the um planting of trees uh between the homes and the streets so let um M let me let me put one of our exhibits back and I'll I'll invite Eric to to read join us cuz I I think that's an excellent you know comment and and um so here's this is the existing you neighborhood and and you're right there's there's not this side of the street in kind of both respects is not really flush with them but you could see the the the line of trees uh between uh the existing uh lot um here and and the neighbor that uh I'll just refer to them as neighbor that was not interested in selling uh at on on Jefferson um that would certainly U be um uh protected and and intentioned to remain as well as on the the far uh side of the lot um Eric if you want to perhaps talk a little bit about what could be done between the two new lots for example and any other kind of supplemental plan planting and if uh if there is a preference for planting elsewhere um you know in that uh kind of setback space or you know we would certainly be willing to or interested in hearing where where those you know resources should go and and where we should consider um putting them certainly um sir Ryan if you could scroll to the subdivision plan wrong way apologies and if we could zoom into the current layout thank you um so what we can do is along the new common property line that the applicant is proposing between the two newly created Lots um in order to create some privacy the applicant would be certainly more than willing to plant trees or shrubs or a combination thereof along that prop common property line in order to create some separation between the two properties additionally um if the board prefers or if the board would like the applicant would certainly be willing to plant Street trees in accordance with the ordinance um it's definitely along Jefferson uh road so that'll add additional trees and we will be removing some trees as part of the application and in accordance with the township tree removal ordinance the applicant will be replanting trees to replace the ones that are being removed right okay thank you you're welcome um other uh questions from board members um Claudia Wilson Anderson what are the implications if any for a detached garage versus a an attached garage for redesign in which you might be able to move the Jefferson Road House over to the north and avoid the paths that's the driveway and the garage might be adjacent to each other Eric I'll maybe see if you can speak to that from a from a setback perspective attaching the garage would actually require would it would become you know kind of amoeba likee and kind of attached to the the home and then the entire Home garage combination would have to respect the full home setback um so that might actually put us in the other direction unfortunately um uh making it more challenging to there Eric no certainly because looking at the corner lot if we were to take that garage and physically attach it to the structure then the Garage itself using the same footprint that we have for the house and the same footprint for the garage the garage would be partly in that sidey yard or that Northerly side um setback which would require us to shift the house even further to the South or into the front setback on Kyler in order to maintain essentially the same score footage that we currently have okay so you're saying it wouldn't solve the problem and what's really the question before us is from your perspective it wouldn't solve the problem and and um so the question for the board is whether not withstanding and given that our task tonight is is not to engineer the site um whether we are interested in granting that setback variance or not and and David uh gave a sort of a framework for discussing that um a little bit later on maybe after we hear public comment um are there other other questions or comments from board members okay uh or from staff any issues uh Derek or uh I guess Dan is not part of this review or yeah there you are Dan sorry Derek or Dan Weissman wanna raise no nope okay um in that case I think it would be a good time to open up the meeting for public comment um there are 30 attendees so now is the time if you would like to plan um triggered something in us I would if it's okay two minutes just to to cover one last note before you open to the to the public um okay well I'll I'll I will let the public know that now is the time to raise your hand if you would like to speak and I know people are already doing that but just keep going ahead and when when we do start public comment after Mr Kennedy's remarks um we'll take comments in the order in which hands were raised Ryan thank you um you're you're you're note about um this not being a site plan um was indeed a good one Madam chairman um because I I want to just absolutely be clear um of a couple of things well one you know we've talked about what the the intention of the applicant is here uh and that intention is both what what they've said on on the record and the conditions that this board would Grant but there's a couple ones that I think we want to be even more clear about um one is that they're proposing to build two single family homes not two single family homes and two adus or any other units beyond what we've shown you here um we could if if the questions come up Talk have our engineer talk a little bit more about why that might be kind of challenging on the site where it might not even really work with parking spaces or or the layouts but um I just wanted to note it's it's in Mr lusco's um memo to an extent but your your note about um site plan um uh reminded me and I just want to absolutely not Beyond what the applicant is proposing not to do that um to add those adus would actually require a site plan approval um even if we were to do it uh in short order after the fact here um and uh we're both having asked for that there is no site plan component for for or for two homes and two adus and that would be necessary if we were uh to propose that uh even after uh the uh um in a within a period after putting this together so there are obstacles to that that is not the applicants proposal and I just want to be clear that we are not asking for site plan approval which would really the only way that we could get additional units including adus beyond the two single family homes that we've proposed okay um so we have um seven or eight people whose hands are raised and I think the first two unless Carrie you've brought anybody over already are Js I just started okay great thank you Jennings and then Sandy Ryder and then Serena Connelly after that um so the person identified is Jennings if you could um activate your camera thank you and uh unmute yourself and then Mr Mueller will swear you in just checking to make sure I don't believe she testified previously no I haven't he oh he oh they sorry did you testify previously I don't think you did no I did not no if you could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony about to give it be the truth I do just want to affirm please your full name and spell your last name Michael Jennings j n n i n gs thank you okay go ahead thank you well um my wife and I are the neighbors most directly affected by the proposal we own the home uh from Jefferson looking at the uh the lot to the left and um we have a I I wouldn't say concerns the one concern we certainly do have is to um reiterate a question raised by a board member and that is concerning the trees on our side of the uh the property line there are three enormous pine trees over 100 feet tall and a huge star magnolia um by the sidewalk and the plan as currently proposed uh putting the driveway in that close to our line is 100% going to affect the uh the route de velopment of those trees and make them extremely unstable um so moving on from the concern about that the current use uh the the driveways with the enormous uh increase in impermeable space and these Lots we already have a water problem the water flows from the house to our left into our lot and these houses will undoubtedly be like every other new house house in the neighborhood be somewhat above grade making the water flow from that side into our house so we're we're also concerned about the driveway and the grade um picking up on a comment made by one of the board members uh I I didn't understand the engineer's response to the idea that the garage would be made attached if the garage were made made attached on the house facing on Jefferson Road the driveways the driveways would be moved much further away from our property and thus from the trees root systems and would increase let's face it these these two homes as proposed will have very very little outdoor space and a lot of that outdoor space is taken up right now by two very long it strikes me as inordinately long driveways I see no reason to have uh driveways that reach all the way back as they do now instead of having a garage next to the house house uh uh increasing the outdoor space and reducing the amount of impermeable uh uh uh surface in the two lots um we we agree with the uh we're in favor of the the antenna the master plan we' like nothing better than to see um more uh uh re reasonably relatively affordable housing in Princeton and so if it's within the purview of the board to ask that the developer reduce the square footage of the two homes if the if the uh uh application is granted and make them into more affordable homes I understand that the the developer has has profitability concerns um he paid a lot of money for the lot but uh I would certainly ask the board to consider seriously the issue of the driveway thank you the size of the Lots okay thanks thanks Mr Jennings Louise I'm just wondering would it be possible while we have these uh Mr Jennings questions in mind um and there were quite a few which I think are really important questions could we hear from the applicant uh or did you want to wait until all all of the comment um I put stars next to three things there myself so I I definitely want to um raise the the issue of the tree protection and uh the grading and water flow um and the location of the driveway and size of the Yards Etc so I I I definitely want to discuss that I'd rather wait until the until everybody's had a chance to talk as long as you're remembering it that's great yeah yeah very good thank you okay so the next person is Sandy R Raider Ryder and then Serena Connelly and then Paul Walberg welcome Miss Ryder um Mr Mueller will swear you in you have not been sworn you were not swor previously correct no excuse me just let me interrupt for a sec Jerry since this is a different plan um from what was looked at before I I don't want to prevent people who spoke last time from speaking I would rather wait and let other people who have not spoken yet um speak first but but I'm I don't want to um prevent people from commenting on the revised plan yeah I think that makes them any good sense they will not have to be sworn in as opposed to oh okay all right great all right great thank you if you could raise your right hand you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give would be the truth I do do want to affirm please St your full name and spell your last name my name is Sandy Ryder re eii Diaz and David e r okay shall I go yes yes please okay planning board members thank you for this opportunity to speak with you um I hope to make my statements clear and concise first let me say that I am opposed to you granting the variance for undersized Lots at 479 Jefferson Road please bear with me this was re written before I saw tonight's presentation and I have to have changed some of it in the new discussion of light of lot sizes on kylo road I was confused were we talking about number of Frontage feet or total lot size when we saw the maps that showed all the undersized Lots in the neighborhood because my husband and I went and looked up many Lots on kylo road and found that many were actually at 2.25 acreage or above it is really not a neighborhood of under sized Lots um in response to um Mia saxs who asked why we would want r one very big home on 479 Jefferson my husband and I walked along Jefferson it is indeed a beautiful street with a deep setback many large lots and big beautiful homes um it seems to me that a large lot with one large home at 479 Jefferson is in fact in keeping with Jefferson Road while I'm while I am pleased that the board quickly agreed that it would be unpleasant and not in keeping with the street for people on Jefferson to look at the side of one of the plan Planned houses on Kyler it gave me pause why aren't you the board eager to maintain the required 0.25 acre lots on Kyler certainly lot size affects a neighborhood more than whether the side or front facade faces Jefferson and why isn't anyone discussing the yard size on the Kyler Road House only the Jefferson Road House sadly I I must say this makes me feel like a second class citizen this both surprises and appalls me especially in light of the history of our cherished neighborhood our neighborhood was originally called Maple Crest our sister neighborhood in West Windsor was Maple Glenn or Glenn Acres if you are interested there is a documentary called Glen Acres in black and white about our unique neighborhoods lastly please do not approve the variant for undersized Lots at 479 Jefferson Place respectfully Sandy Ryder thank you thank you for that sure how do I get rid of myself uh you'll be moved back over to the attendees okay okay okay the next next person to speak is Serena con Connelly yes and she was previously sworn that's right members of the planning board thank you for spending your Tuesday night on important community business and thank you for the opportunity to speak what we've heard presented this evening corrects some issues in the developers original application but still fails to address a fundamental problem that is the basis for my opposition the proposed lot sizes have not changed this remains an application for two non-conforming lots not one but two just because there are other undersized Lots in the neighborhood many of which were created 70 years ago does not mean that additional undersized Lots should be created now otherwise why do we today have minimum lot size requirements because the proposed houses are too big for these undersized Lots the front yard setback on Kyer for lot one is around 80% of the required distance that's around 5 feet too short actually more than that I oppose these overcrowded and undersized lots and I oppose this subdivision there is no need for a subdivision the developers as has already been stated this evening can build two houses on the undivided lot one regular sized and one smaller using the Adu ordinance so why are they seeking subdivision presumably because they have figured out that this will maximize their profits and they can boost them even further if granted their subdivision as has also been mentioned this evening they will be allowed subject to a site plan to build one house and one Adu on each undersized lot creating four houses where there was previously just one imagine the scenario replicated across the neighborhood indeed just a few streets away there is right now an application to build four houses on what is currently one lot granting these subdivisions whether creating two houses or two houses plus two adus would constitute a radical change to the character of our neighborhood I commend and commiserate with the planning board which has already spent considerable time on 479 Jefferson I hope they will not have to spend even more of their volunteered time considering this profit driven application thank you for your attention thank you okay the next person I have brought over is Paul Walberg if you could put your video on soon Mr Walberg has also um sworn any he testified previously okay Mr Walberg if you could activate your camera um you've already been sworn in so apologies it says you cannot start your video because the host has stopped it ah we're going to make that there we go there we go there am I on okay thank you okay so I've already been sworn in I don't need to right do not have to be sworn in again correct okay all right thank you very much um dear members of the planning board thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak I did speak last time and to reiterate what I had said before 45 people from Kyler Walnut Dempsey and in surrounding this property have signed a petition expressing oppos opposition to subdivisions that allow developers to build four houses where there was originally only one this is a fundamental problem that the Adu ordinance has created split a lot in two you get an opportunity to build four times as many homes please do not subdivide conforming Lots in our neighborhood into non-conforming Lots regardless of how many houses are built do the reason is doing so undermine the Integrity of our current zoning laws creating a precedent that encourages developers to pursue a growing number of similar requests for subdivision in the future it's not just about this variance request this forces us potentially in the future to expend tremendous amounts of energy opposing all future variances on a lot by lot basis from my perspective this is abusing the variance process to undermine zoning ordinances and doing so isn't fair to the residents of our community the same people that the zoning ordinances were designed to protect under some circumstances in the future every time we are not able to organize fast enough to successfully oppose future organisms future variances we risk having four houses built where there was originally only one that's a problem and it would be an exhausting problem for us it is very misleading to describe this test case variance as minor as its effects will be enormous potentially changing how developers approach the future development all larger Lots in all of our neighborhoods in Princeton just as they have in two lots in our own neighborhood in only the last 3 to six months your decision regarding this lot will affect far more people than just those within 200 ft and so much more time and energy should have been expended to make sure all the residents of Princeton understood the significance of what you are doing in considering thank you very much thank you Mr wellberg okay I just brought over Jeffrey Irving and then we have Tom Judson and Patricia lofberg I think Jeffrey Irving is still in the attendees um room there we go if you could raise your right hand uh Mr Irving you need to activate your camera it appears well first of all do you have add audio for me yes we can we can hear you you yep I uh neglected to do this beforehand but I didn't allow Zoom video before coming here so if it's okay to proceed without video I'll ask that leave otherwise you'll have to bear with me while I activate my camera um I'm sorry to put you to the trouble but we greatly appreciate your activating your camera if you can do that I received word that he declined his invitation he he was he was leaving Zoom so he could reenter activate his video when he re-enters got it thank you great all thank you thank you for your patience I'm sorry about that oh thank you for um accommodating that uh video If You Could raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I S so from um chair members of the board thank you for putting um the and allowing members of the public to speak I'm a native of Princeton and a homeowner in Princeton as well and I'll uh Echo some of the concerns that my fellow um fellow neighbors have raised in opposition to this subdivision variance as well as a setback variance um the precedent that this creates for conforming Lots within the city is extremely concerning um so and as an initial matter I oppose the subdivision because it creates that dangerous precedent that the preceding speaker um so eloquently identified that this will expand for all new developments in aging homes to remove some of the Aging homes for a new housing stock that becomes crowded and not in line with the overall theme of the master plan in various neighborhoods across the town so not just this neighborhood but others um affecting the nature of Princeton itself as for the setback it seems like the need for the setback to put the prop or to maximize a square footage is purely driven by profit which should not be a compelling reason to grant that Set uh 8 foot setback from the Kyler uh property line and I I didn't hear any um compelling argument from the developer or the applicant for why that specific variant should be granted um other than to increase the square footage of the houses um and in so doing to increase the cost of each of those individual houses beyond what any reasonable person would C call a modly priced dwelling I think a more appropriate means to get this uh to increase the housing stock would be to allow for a single development without subdivision and approval of a single Adu um which would set would not create the presidential problem that I indicated in the first portion of my remarks um so in conclusion again both reject the or oppose the approval of a subdivision as well as the setback from Coler thank you thank you Mr Irving okay the next person is Tom Judson Patricia lofberg okay Mr Judson was previously sworn hi everyone and thank you for the opportunity to be heard I have a nearby house at 26 Kyer the most significant decision before the planning board on this application is whether zoning waivers for size they could replace the existing on story house with four multi-story houses instead of two are Justified under current zoning law it isn't to preserve the status quo of a one story house or even a choice between one large house or two as discussed in the April 18th meeting the planning board cannot condition approval of variances on foregoing adus at a later date I by the way my my advice to the board is to the contrary I think they can do that and the applicant has said that they would not in fact seek a s plans and ERS may can change as a result the question is whether zoning waivers for size that would allow construction of four houses fit the development patterns and character of the neighborhood the expanded survey area presented tonight doesn't represent the local Kyler Walnut dempy Jefferson neighborhood but a much larger section of Princeton as a basis for waivers the planning board exhibit as presented at the April 18th meeting substantially relies upon undersized Lots on Kyler Road approved before the zoning law was changed those properties are an important part of this neighborhood yet this size of each of those lots was approved before the zoning law was amended for the purpose of not having lots smaller than those under the new zoning law they're generally one-story Ranch houses built in the 50s and without adus using those properties to characterize Lots in the neighborhood as undersized for comparable waivers would reset the new zoning law to the old requirements it would use Lots allowed under early zoning like a ratchet for current application for the current application which would then set a precedent for future applications in addition the planning board exhibit States blocks with private deed restrictions on the other side of Kyler Road are the outliers there's no reason to remove blocks with deed restrictions from neighborhood Maps instead of outliers they're part of the neighborhood together with many small ranch houses throughout the Kyler Walmart Dempsey Jefferson neighborhood the deed restricted blocks support a pattern of development of a relatively quiet neighborhood to limit the rate of change to the pattern of development in our neighborhood and not to establish a precedent that could use requirements from earlier zoning law to set lot sizes I request that members of the board not Grant this application for zoning waivers for sides thank you Mr [Music] Judson okay the next person is Patricia lofberg um and right now no one else has raised their hand to speak so now now someone has or maybe not maybe so maybe not uh the hand goes up the hand comes down so now is the time if you wish to uh address the board um to raise your hand uh and after we finish hearing from everyone um we will close the meeting to public comment so who's next Carrie actually I'm moving Michael Bell over because um Patricia declined uh Patricia her I'm sorry j Justin she's in the meeting she's in the meeting helping me I'm mixed up Miss l in the meeting and she's ready to speak and she okay great miss lofberg if you could um unmute yourself you're still on mute there we go there we go sorry no problem had previously been okay go right ahead hi I'm Patricia la I live at 79 Kyler um I'm opposed to the subdivision for the reasons that have been stated by others here this evening and I just wanted to bring up one my main concern um um traffic that will be there if you're adding two houses it's a busy Corner we have children walking to school we ride bikes we walk our dogs it's a quiet neighborhood which doesn't have sidewalks and so we you know it it's busy and we go out on to K to Jefferson where there are sidewalks so to add two houses which will likely four houses that to me means four cars or eight cars and it's already a busy Corner one house with an a du a would be would be enough um that's my biggest concern thank you okay okay thank you thank you Miss lber [Music] um Carrie are you bringing over Michael Bell uh yes I'm so sorry you stop there we are yeah Mr Bell previously been swor in yes um I'm not seeing Oh yes there we are okay all right um thank you for allowing me to speak again on this proposal um as you consider this uh for a vote I just ask the board to consider this the benefit of this subdivision acrs entirely to the developer who will be able to create large and expensive homes on what was previously one house a lot with one house the board and the master plan our new master plan have lamented the lack of the missing middle so-called in Princeton that there is not a supply of affordable homes for other than very wealthy people and I would ask the board to consider does this proposal do anything to address that issue I believe it will not instead it will create a precedent which will be used to destroy our neighborhood and raise the price of all of the houses that are created and that's my point it's all to the developer and not to the community thank you thank you Mr Bell um any other members of the public wish to address the board I see no more hands up among the attendees at this time so seeing none I will close the um public hearing portion of this application and [Music] um invite a continued discussion and deliberation by the board um although let's let's tick off some as um Miss sex mentioned early on there are a number of uh issues people raised that I definitely want to address so Mr Jennings the next door neighbor uh is rightly concerned about very large trees right next to um where the driveway is um um shown on the plan and um so we'd like to hear what you have to say about that and also about um grading and um storm water flow uh from this property onto his [Music] um and [Music] um yeah that let's talk about those things for starters Mr Kennedy sure his other question his other question I think was about um the detached garage versus the attached I mean I I'll just say like personally the detached garage is a is a feature throughout the former burough that I think you know is is um very authentic but to the point about you know optimizing space here I just would be interested to hear the answer to that all right so I'll um invite our engineer uh back U we had or at least I had starred uh the same things um U as as questions or or things to resp resp on to um so Eric from a storm water perspective um sometimes existing conditions are are opportunities to make things better you know we're essentially required to under the ordinance not um allow water to sheet flow onto neighboring property so can you talk a little bit about what we would design um how that would be avoided and and the I guess the potential for to ameliorate the existing if there is an existing problem of flow from this property onto the neighboring property how that could potentially um be amiliar certainly um so right now under under the existing conditions the area north of the current dwelling as it sits on the property the ground adjacent to the dwelling is slightly higher than the ground as you go in a Northerly direction that is why surface runoff from this property some of which presently flows onto the neighboring property what we're proposing as part of any site plan that gets submitted to the um engineering department for build building permits is when the property is graded we cannot continue to direct water onto the neighbor's property the water has to either remain on our property and flow through our property into the public roadways or we have to manage it on site as I indicated before this application is going to be subject to the minor storm waterer ordinance in prinston for development um that are not classified as a major development um part of what we can do in grading the property and sighting the house is to direct storm water onto the pavement of the driveway and then direct the water along the pavement into the public roadway down spouts from the roofs are typically tied into the green infrastructure be it rain Gardens um underground infiltration systems in order to manage the runoff from the roof area and any excess runoff that flows into those um storm water bmps will then overflow into the public roadway essentially the only area that may flow onto the neighbor's property would be limited to the area adjacent to the existing trees what we will do is minimize the disturbance to those root Zone and part of that requires no grading minimal filling certainly no cutting that potentially would damage the root zones of the trees so I do believe as part of the site design we can grade the site in such a way that we can minimize any stormw flow onto the neighbor neighboring property definitely any of the proposed impervious surface will not flow on to the neighbor's property so I hope U Madam chair that answers your question yeah sorry I was I muted myself and [Music] um uh yes and no I mean we still um it I still have a really powerful concern about the impact of building a driveway next to these you know immediately adjacent to these very large trees um it looks to me you know based on eyeballing it from walking by and looking at areals that the root zones um would go well under the driveway and I just you know have a real concern about that and might um argue uh as have other factors uh for putting the driveway um connecting the driveway to um eer Mr Cohen yeah I just wanted to take I know this is a little bit repetitive but since Miss ZX asked the question about the attached garage again I wanted to try and be a little clearer about what the issue is there a detached garage is an accessory structure it is allowed to be in the side or rear yard setback an attached garage is part of the primary structure and so there are no there's no relief for where that can go so essentially if they attached the garage to the house they would actually have to push the entire building towards Kyler that would have a salutary effect or either further towards Kyler which would require more of a front yard variance or they would have to be into the sidey which would be a new variance that they're not currently required to have I don't know if I explain that clearly if people can nod if you got it but very clear David very helpful thank so but all of that is to say that you know the idea of maybe giving up some of that backyard space um and keeping the the driveway off of Kyler for both houses is something that we should strongly encourage we should condition I don't you know um I don't want to dictate to the board how we should be responding but um you know one of the you know one of the possibilities that I'm considering you know is just not granting the front yard setback variance right so I'm going to talk a little bit about the the undersized lot variant and try again to address a little bit of the public objection I want to make sure that people understand that zoning is not created as an ideal that you know universally applies everywhere within each Zone what zoning does when it sets up setbacks and bulk standards and stuff is it tries to approximate what is on the ground existing so people from the public sort of saying oh you know we shouldn't be using the lot sizes that were established before zoning as something to guide our decision making there's nothing I mean there's nothing purer or more correct about lot sizes that are in the zoning than the lot sizes that existed prior to the zoning it's just the zoning was trying to create an overall set of rules that would apply well in most of the neighborhoods where the zoning was created so here I think it's really true that the zoning numbers just aren't correct for Kyler because virtually every single lot on Kyler is undersized either for width or for area or for both and so for us to use the existing lot sizes on Kyler and applying them to this subdivision question I think is really appropriate these are lots that are on Kyler all the other Lots that are on Kyler or undersized it's really di Minimus it's a difference of you know 02 Acres between a quarter acre and 0 23 acres and so I'm inclined to say that granting the undersized Lots is fine but we could not Grant the front yard setback and that would essentially Force the developer to make a decision about should I build a smaller house on this lot because I can't really do a full size I can't use the whole floor area and still get a backyard so what's more important to me is it the backyard then I shrink the house is it the size of the house then I give up the backyard but I don't if we don't grant that front yard variance then we're forcing the developer to make one of those decisions um to either shrink the house or to to lose the backyard um what about the Three Trees how how does that impact the Three Trees the three trees on the Neighbors which the trees are between um large trees it's really yeah yeah so so what what I hope the developer would consider doing is moving the driveway back to Kyler and then they can move the house away from Kyler because the remember the driveway being on the north side of the house that's what's pushing it too close to Kyler that's what's requiring the front yard very on Kyler if they get rid of that driveway we save the trees will'll reduce reduce the impervious coverage they can keep the same size house they have current and all they'll lose is some outdoor backyard space so I I think that's the best solution for the Neighbors I think it's the best solution for the developer that's sort of what I would encourage the board to seriously consider you we ask the applicant to respond to that Ryan so um as as usual um uh made some excellent points there um I'm not advocating or suggesting that you that we walk away or that we are walking away from that setback um and we I do believe we' Justified it and explained it in a way that is uh that this board can approve but approving it in the way that going has um suggested does require that trade-off it's possible that the home could be uh reconfigured uh to work um with the drive on that side but that pushed back the trees being protected and a different designed home it's also possible that that reconfiguring it still conditioned on it facing Jefferson I suppose but with a different driveway location um forced I suppose by the lack of that setback variance um would result in one of those two situations that I I believe um would in all likelihood have you know meet the goals that that it sounds like the board is is is is looking for um the only caution amongst many that I have though is that you know we haven't designed it that way and that I think what Mr goens suggested has the most flexibility to make sure that something will work to everyone's satisfaction once we whether you know a combination of moving the driveway of redesigning the house and and those um options as long as it meets the core conditions of what we've discussed namely that it it you know the the Jefferson setback uh the um the uh home facing uh Jefferson with a sidewalk connection to Jefferson um that's that's that's what I'm hearing there and I I'm um my retion is is more just to make sure that we don't approve something that is impossible then we have to come back um it does sounds like there's an option for for flexibility that would force one of two likely good Solutions out of that and that namely is pulling things towards Kyler um you know the driveway at everything with a different designed home or a Kyler driveway in some way that does has the same uh effect and I don't know which of those two will will ultimately do it at this point because we haven't designed them that way yet but um at least conditioning were thinking about that way would would make sure that there would be some likelihood of an option that that something would work without us coming back to the board for different relief at some point uh Mr Taylor and then um yeah two two quick comments first of all from the perspective of the public just in general what I'm hearing is a real and honest concern about preserving the consistency the feeling the look of a special neighborhood given this discussion and the comments just made it seems to me David's Cohen suggestion is very practical I like it the second question I have just to be absolutely sure there's been so much discussion about the legal implications of being a subdivision let's be absolutely sure that we're clear in our own analysis that we understand the rationale of the applicant's choice of doing a subdivision versus the options available well one um one thing that came up a few times that I think is tangential to um to what you just said or or or maybe relates directly to what you just said Jack is the notion that um allowing these two this subdivision into two slightly undersized lots that are consistent inside with many other Lots in the vicinity somehow sets a terrible precedent yeah um I totally disagree with that um and I think that you know not only um is it consistent with with the actions that this board has taken in in the past um uh and it is uh I I I just completely disag agree with that premise and you know maybe our our planner or our attorney or other members of the board can uh opine about that but um I you know while I personally do not find the rationale for the setback variance that the applicant has given to be persuasive I do find the rationale for the subdivision um to be persuasive because I think that two reasonably sized houses and everybody you know can differ on what's a big house and what's a little house and what's affordable and what's not is still going to be um better for the town and More in keeping with uh the neighborhood um than um a really really enormous uh 5,000 square foot house on that um or or a 4,000 foot house and thousand squ foot Adu on that property that's that's my opinion and I think like I said I think the rationale for that is is strong um anybody else Justin did you want to say something about the the issue of President yeah uh well so I kind of wanted to build off of what David Cohen had said earlier about the zoning and the comments coming up about it um let's just keep in mind that Princeton came first and then zoning you know especially these parts of Princeton not the other way around the other way around is you know Maricopa County Arizona or you know some of those nice uh Square Lots you fly over um so when we talk about zoning in Princeton there was a lot that existed before no pun attendant um but many things that existed before um including you know mostly the center of town uh both the burrow and the township areas like this um then on top of that we have things that you know before various boards zoning board or or planning board that have created exceptions to that zoning on top of that then we have the things like the private deed restrictions that were mentioned before as well so all of these things kind of jumble into uh our built form and you know the way that Princeton's developed over the past uh you know 300 plus years um so I mean that's essentially why we're here today or why the planning board and the zoning board exist are are to allow for exceptions from that zoning which is you know that blunt tool um that has been identified uh in the past so then specifically when it comes to to an application like this one uh the the regulations that go into zoning some of them are absolute like the lot minimum size but others are percentages so you can't uh by right have a a lot that's 0.24 Acres um but you can have one that's 0.26 and the percentages don't you know kind of go with the size you have so in a case like this you know 044 acres is almost but not fully double the uh 0.25 requirement but the percentage of the structure doesn't change so that's where we get these tear downs and rebuilds and I know especially that's hit this neighbor uh neighborhood uh you know the past at least decade uh so that's kind of you know why we're here having this discussion we have that minimum lot size requirement uh we don't have a maximum lot size requirement uh and we have then percent of you know of whatever the lot size is that the building can be so to your point uh Louise about what fits more with the neighborhood um especially one that you know was mostly built before the zoning requirements that we have now um in the 40s and 50s for this one uh there are structures you could see the structures that were built post zoning uh you know since the zoning was added and you could see the structures that were built uh prior to it and what we're trying to do here is balance out you know what is the feel of that neighborhood uh if it you know if the variances based on the applicant's argument better serve uh the community and our zoning plan based on the municipal land use law so I hope that didn't get too wonky or too in the weeds um but you know that's essentially where the zoning uh and the variances fit in thank you um pauka and then Nat bimer poivy you're still on mute okay there thank you madam chair uh just wanted to say that um I liked uh David's comments about uh Shifting the driveways um to be both on Kyler and also the comments about um perhaps uh not granting the the variance on the setbacks however I also had just one point of clarification for the applicant and this is returning to an earlier point that was raised about having a shared driveway and attached garage and I didn't quite follow the rationale for why they need to have separate driveways if if you are indeed considering putting both driveways on Kyler um would you consider um perhaps um having one driveway that can access both garages so I'll I'll let the applicant speak a little bit to this um um from one perspective the the the Shar driveway might seem to give us some additional space But ultimately with a with the Jefferson fronting house um any whether it's a an independent Kyler driveway or a shared driveway we're talking only a foot or two um of of space because ultimately the parking needs to be on the Jefferson lot and setb enough um with the possible exception I guess of if there's a zero lot line um garage that's permitted that still needs to be in the usable backyard area of the Jefferson lot rather than a side yard so um both of those Solutions I think would be explored you know along with perhaps moving the house a little bit you know or redesigning the house and and pulling things away from the uh the other Jefferson neighbor with a Jefferson driveway but but ultimately whether it's a shared driveway or an independent driveway that's you know close to the property line and just uh at the the ordinance distance we still have that same problem of cutting up the backyard usable area and have to address it in in some way with the design of the site though the the drawbacks are a little little less so I suppose with the a shared driveway um but they're still there that the the parking needs to be set back and you would be in that only kind of usable backyard area and you on top of that there's some additional I'll just say traditional kind of neighbor issues with uh while it's fairly common it is not always a popular item amongst neighbors with the share driveway Arrangement and the the need to um they always say fences make great neighbors shares driveways do not always make great neighbors so there is a bit of a downside sometimes with that Arrangement as well just from a uh a how say a popularity perspective or for who would want to um uh to to utilize it so I I I I believe and I'll I'll ask or to speak a little bit as well but keeping those options open ultimately that might be the best thing and perhaps the developer chooses that um perhaps they choose something else that solves these problems we just we just don't really know that I I don't think that the share driveway necessarily solves the problem um of parking in the only kind of not the in the usable backyard part of the Jefferson facing house because that's where the Shar driveway and the parking would be or or anything you want to add to that M mute sir still muted okay there we go the Shar driveway creates a problem of the uh then you have to create a joining driveway who's going to clean driveway so you have to actually create a uh different setback I mean the uh forms that between two neighbors it can be a problem in the future some kind of an agreement or even a homeowner well not a homeowner yeah but I see what you're saying more than that yeah and one thing that occurs to me is and I do think I do think it's would be wise to have both driveways off of Kyler and you can make a bigger backyard by building a smaller house but and that might be very appealing to people who care more about a backyard than about a fifth bedroom but uh if it's a shared driveway it makes screening between the two dwellings more complicated and um and potentially more difficult and I and I do think that that should be an important um consideration um for for both households I'll also note that the common the predominant pattern of shared driveways in Princeton is to front to back homes that are cited facing the same street it is much less common or I don't know if I've come across the ones a Shar driveway with one you know a sidey yard situ situation backing up into the more private backyard areas it's it's a little bit more challenging on a on a corner a lot and while May perhaps our discussion was was focused more on the effect on the one home Madam chair you're you're exactly right it does limit the screening for for both properties as well uh as an option it may be the best one it may be what he chooses but uh I guess I'll I'll just continue to to ask the board to remain flexible so that uh the best solution that complies with your other requirements could ultimately be done okay thanks um Mr oh I'm sorry did did you have a followup question P um if it's hopefully this would be quick I'm just wondering if there's any setback requirements for the garages um do they have to be set um back in the lot as the way they are now so assuming um uh they are not attached uh to to the home and Mr did an excellent job of explaining that earlier uh we're looking at 5et from a lot line uh for uh either for the detached accessory structure like a garage or if a non-shared driveway um three feet Sor excuse me five feet for um for the driveway a little bit further for parking if there was a shared driveway there's a provision that would allow if they're done at the same time uh to be a shared garage or like zero lot line garage um that is allowed to be a little closer uh but that option would also have the implication of the you you'd lose the place where the screening would be um in in doing that but it it would be five feet I believe for both driveway and uh accessory building um or if they were if there was a shared driveway obviously it's zero because they could straddle the line thank you m Bodenheimer and then uh Miss ZX um I thank you madam chair uh I I guess I wanted to to to start start by saying how very unsympathetic I am to any argument that is premised on greedy developer rhetoric uh I just you know unless anyone here has built their own house with their own hands uh they're in a house that was that was developed by a developer and we owe our housing to the profit motive of that sector and uh I don't understand why we you know this sector gets singled out for vilification when you know it seems to be treated differently from every other profit seeking part of our society that we frankly relish and I'm sure many of the members of the neighborhood profit by and I would say the second reason is that I'm keenly aware of the fact that since we bought our house here in 2012 the value of our home has practically doubled vastly the increase in value vastly outstrips the amount of money that we put into the house and that capital gain is completely undeserved and results from the systematic structural underprovision of housing in Princeton and in every other community in New Jersey and the people who benefit from that are us the people who are fortunate enough to own our homes now and I know that everyone here thinks about that and maybe secretly maybe at their dinner parties talks about the increase of the values of their homes uh maybe we don't talk about it but we're conscious of it and I look I'll be honest I'm pleased by it but I also know I don't deserve it and so uh part of our public policy is to increase the amount of housing that is available to meet Supply and to that is part you know every little bit every little bit helps in this regard and so that is the big reason why I'm comfortable with the comments that you know that David have made and that chair chair one have made about being sympathetic to the subdivision I'm also aware as somebody who lives next door to two houses that have been teared down and rebuilt and as someone who walks my dog along Grover along Harris in the Littlebrook neighborhood where there are lots of tear Downs I am highly sensitive to the what feels to me like the negative impact of what is allowable by right here and I'm Al unsympathetic to concerns about radical impact the neighborhood based on the positive feeling that practically everybody in Princeton has about a street like Jefferson where everybody sends their kids to trick- or treat because it's like the ideal neighborhood and so I just don't understand the hand ringing about the changes in density here I am completely sympathetic to the design issues that we are grappling with that have to do with the front yard setback and the location of the the driveway um and the impact of the trees and the storm water these are all very practical questions but I mean I just think that I just I just want to say uh that we should take the tone of the temperature down a bit and treat this as the Practical problem solving exercise that it is and uh you know consistent with a just and moderate policy of trying to improve our neighborhoods and that peopling them with people in moderately sized houses who are not outrageously rich is probably a good thing and that's all I have to say thank you Nat thank you Mia socks uh it's really hard to follow that it is I don't envy you especially because I have a just a very specific a question and I'm sorry I'm going back to the Three Trees um uh so I am losing the forest for the trees I apologize um but um I uh is there some way so if you could just explain to me um you know I'm sort of agnostic one driveway two driveways or whatever but what needs to be done to ensure that the neighbor um you know that the storm water impact of the driver way is is not directly dumping into his yard and also that the driveway is not um uh impinging on the uh you know the drip line and the roots of the trees and and I'm just wondering Louise if maybe we should have one of our uh Dan Weissman or one of our I don't know if he's here yes he is here one of our staff um comment on this Dan absolutely uh thank you council president um so prior to any development uh if there's anything done on this lot or otherwise um tree protection zones are reviewed by uh the municipal arborist um that's a requirement for any type of development uh and that applies to trees on that lot or not on that lot so before any building permit is signed off there's a prior approval sheet that requires a signature from multiple departments one of which is also the municipal arbest and myself um that tree protection will be reviewed uh it will be uh verified and it cannot be removed throughout the duration of the project so if the applicant or anybody looking to any kind of work uh submits a plan that shows tree protection accounting for trees and we go out there and we realize the tree protection is about 15 20 ft off of where it should be it's got to be removed and and relocated um that's that's the simple fact of it um if it's not in their lot they they can certainly uh request from from the adjacent property owner to uh remove the tree uh because it may be impacted by the development but they can't do that without the approval of of the adjacent lot owner um as to storm waterer uh Mr ruar rain's uh comments are are absolutely right uh there can be no uh increase in storm water running off from a site uh that will be reviewed uh by the engineering department um myself specifically uh for an engineering site plan application uh prior to any uh that happens before zoning permit is even issued so that's even before a building permit is issued um so we have uh checks in place um what what could be uh if if this application gets there uh a condition of approval could be uh included to um going back to the the tree protection to meet on site before any major site design happens to verify the location of the tree protection fencing um and have that actually put on the plan that's developed as opposed to a theoretical line that may or may not have to be uh edited or or or revised um after the project is designed um I think that would be beneficial here uh especially hearing the concerns um and and if the project if the application gets there um I would request that that be added as a condition of approval Mr Cohen oh oh I'm sorry I'm sorry Mia were you done well I I just I just want to say uh to that you know the larger point back to the forest and and to to Nat's point that you know having listened to whole a whole presentation at a state conference recently about the new state plan that's coming forward you know what subdivision of large Lots you know and moving away from the postwar suburban sprawl um type of development is is coming as a you know this will be a a top recommendation for the state as a whole because we are built out so um it is this is not something radical it is something that's being you know uh recommended in in every planning school and in you know um you know right to to the top of the state um and in the nation so in dealing with with um States like New Jersey in particular that are built out but also um I uh you know we do have an issue with our tree canopy in in Princeton and it is um being eroded not from multif family housing where you know there were a number of articles about this recently where uh there is a a high level of enforcement and a and a tree replacement ratio it it is more in the uh single family uh tear Downs that we are losing our tree canopy and that's why um I'm particularly focused on these trees because I know that we need to build more middle-sized housing but I want to make sure that we're not losing our trees so um thank you uh Dan very much for that comprehensive explanation that's all y thank you David yes Dan turn your camera back on I just had a clarifying question so if the driveway uh you know if the applicant come comes to the conclusion they to continue with the driveway coming off Jefferson if the driveway overlaps the drip line of these trees essentially they wouldn't be allowed to build that plan because the driveway canot oh you know can't cover the re the root zone is that is that a correct statement uh yes uh to an extent there is a portion of a root Zone that that may be uh for lack of a better word I'll say compromised um but they're much smaller diameter Roots um and there can be some uh preventative measures that can be done um air spading uh to excavate around um but really until you see where where the tree protection zone is there's a tree protection Zone and there's a critical root protection Zone um an evaluation would have to be done in the field uh so to answer your question uh yes and no is it I'm GL I'm glad I asked is it is it correct to say that the safest way to make sure those the tree Pro protection Zone and the critical tree root zone are not compromised is to Simply move the driveway uh to the other side of the lot so that it the driveway connects with Kyler and not uh and is not built where the where the drawing shows it now I mean I I I guess I guess I'm trying to throw a softball but it seems to me so obvious that I mean that driveway is very close to the lot line and so are those trees and they're huge and their root zones are huge too and uh no you're you're absolutely right I mean if if that driveway is underneath the drip line of the trees that's that's the tree protection zone so uh just looking at Aerials as to where the drip line of those trees are is is along that lot line right um to avoid any impact to any roots of those trees uh would be to relocated away from that lot yeah okay thanks um other uh questions comments from board members there were few other issues that were raised by members of the public that um I just want to see what I had um I think we've dealt with all of them I I I [Music] um agree with the with what folks have well I agree with Dan Weisman the expert about the um not being concerned that storm water flow onto the neighboring property is going to be a problem because um if that problem exists now it will be uh addressed by our own ordinance requirements um uh when and if a house is built there so that was the other starred thing I had um other comments from from board members questions deliberations thoughts opinions um I I will share my own opinion which maybe I've already shared which is that I believe that the [Music] um subdivision uh is reasonable and um and that the justification for the variance is um a good one or uh multiple good ones um I do not agree with the setback variants and prefer not to grant that personally and I would hope that we can require that the driveway uh that both driveways um come off of Kyler uh and I appreciate I should would just say I appreciate the extent to which the applicant has addressed and tried to address concerns that were raised from the very start which in the beginning primarily were very much focused on the home you know one of the home on the left the Western more more of the two homes uh front on um Jefferson which was a huge concern early on and and the applicant immediately addressed it and has um you know seemed to be um wanting to uh address other concerns as well which I appreciate Louise um if you could clarify are you in favor of granting the front yard variance for the kylo I am not in favor of granting the setback variance no but I was a little confused in that thank you sorry if I was not clear about that if you wanted to make a motion along those lines Louise I would uh be interested in seconding it I'm well I typically as chair I don't make motions would someone else like to make that interpret my uh my 1035 into a motion if not I W I would be willing to make it myself if nobody else wants to okay I David your mouth is starting yeah I just want to um make sure you know Jerry's comfortable with the condition requiring the drive voice both to be off Kyler I want to check with the applicant to you know I I see Ryan shaking his head I was more inclined to give the applicant a little flexibility I mean if they can keep the driveway out of the tree protection Zone and keep it off of Jefferson and that's their preference I think I'd like to allow them to do that is there um let me then then I may have a question either for Dan or for um Derek is there a distance from the corner that the driveway has to be in other words could the driveway be on the other side of the house and not along the lot line no because it would be too close to the corner yeah all right correct you're correct did I interrupt some I'm sorry uh Alvin did are you did you have your hand up or you're muted I think you were just holding your okay got it um I hope Elvin that's not I'm struggling a little bit I'm struggling a little bit because I'm using my iPad because my computer's not working so that's why I see that got it um so I I'm just trying to make sure I understand a decision I'm going to make if the variance for this for the front yard setback is not granted then at least as as I'm listening to to what David is saying and I think what what Mr Kennedy's been saying is then that that gives some flexibility to the developer to to have to decide where where to where say put the driveway and is that is that further limited by what I'm what I think I'm hearing from m Weissman that there still has to be the arborist and himself will have to go there to see whether or not in fact the trees will be that will disturb the the drip line of what the trees are is that is that have I sort of stated where you know a position there and what what what what could happen I think the no I see him nodding so I just want to make sure that that's that's I got it I think the question of the front yard setback is independent of the location of the um driveway on the Jefferson lot sorry go ahead D yeah so if they want to keep the existing floor plans and they just have to move the house back from KY to meet the setback requirement they cannot keep the driveway where it is however if they decide that they're better off redoing the floor plan so that they can move the front of the house back without moving the back of the house back then they could leave the driveway where it is but as you say Alvin only if it doesn't impact the tree prot protection Zone in any way I mean that you know I that just obviously have a real concern about that and I don't want I I feel like we should be um unequivocal about especially since they do have at the corner lot they have an alternative um [Music] and that if there is any risk to those large trees right near the lot line but on the neighbor's property if there is any risk associated with the placement of the driveway then it should not be built there and that that's my own opinion and I don't know whether you know I guess I guess that still give them some flexibility if the experts say you know we believe there is no risk I just have a hard time believing that's where they're going to come down because of because just eyeballing it it looks impossible so my my preference would be to to require a uh just make it simple and require that the the driveway be off of Kyler and and then they have to decide whether they you know build a a slightly smaller house with a bigger yard or you know sacrific basically almost all the backyard um Freddy pearlmutter and then Dan Weissman and I just want to note that it's 10:40 um I really want to finish this tonight and I also want to try our very best to honor our 11 o'clock stop so let's try to um wrap things up Freddy am I question really is that actually because I mean certainly from an environmental standpoint I want those trees preserved um but if it turned out that they were able to do that that it didn't endanger the trees would they have to come back again for to get the uh setback they want no I don't think that we're contemplating anything that would require that they come back no I I think think that the condition would be that if they if that if we're going to give them flexibility um that they could place the driveway connecting to Jefferson in its current uh configuration only if there were no threat whatsoever to those trees in the in the Judgment of the arborist and um other professional landscape architect um but isn't that or or we or I you know I think slh hope we can um make a condition that the driveway come off of Kyler and just do away with that possibility that I understand but but if we say they can do it I think it's unlikely that the arborist would say there's no way this could be pretended right but if it they did in order to do what they want to do don't they need the set back no no I think that the issue of the setback is is separate well what's the setback for then the setback um variance is for the frontage for the um Frontage on Kyler I thought there were two I thought there was one on Kyler and there was one on jeers no they they did they um erased that variance with the redesign the the new design um just uh does not involve a setback variance on uh facing Jefferson okay that was my misunderstanding then okay Dan thank you madam chair I just wanted to uh clarify one other thing uh and I'm not don't remember if we're on a motion or a suggested motion uh if the floor area ratio is going to meet the uh permitted 25% floor area ratio or Does it include the proportional floor area ratio for substandard Lots um and then same thing goes with the maximum permitted impervious coverage uh is it the 49.5% or is the 36% for complying Lots just want to get the clarification on that well they yeah it's a good thing to clarify as yeah I would would think a condition should be that the um they adhere to the 25% maximum F and the lower of the two figures you named for impervious cover 36% okay okay let me let me ask this about the 36% then because on the in the report it says oh okay it's 36% okay that that's fine they've agreed that they would comply with both of those and I think conditions yes they did yeah and thank you for that Mr Kennedy Mr leco uh yes and similarly another condition might be that the cor the proposed corner lot or the new one that's going on the corner uh would have to the structure would have to front on Jefferson yes that's something they've agreed to but just want to make sure it gets in there Freddy pearlet just for clarification because we've gone back and forth with so many different variations before we vote on this can we can someone actually exctly say what exactly on yes yes and um uh so do I hear a motion to approve the subdivision including the minimum lot area variance and not including the prevailing front yard setback variance on proposed lot 1.01 um and with the conditions that Mr Muller will articulate yes you're you hear that motion okay who makes that motion I'm making that motion thank you David you repeat it so we could hear it again the the motion is to approve the subdivision um which includes the minimum lot area variant but not um the variance for the front yard setback on Kyler for for lot um proposed lot 1.01 the corner lot but not require that the uh driveway for the corner lot be relocated well that's one of the conditions that I that I thought you would um articulate yeah and the board's and I know that we we can I would be comfortable with the condition that says they can located either place as long as our professionals determine there is no risk whatsoever to the root zones of those large trees but I would prefer that the condition be that the driveway come off of Kyler so the board can discuss if we want but um that seems to me Louise to be the only point where I don't I think they that there might not be a consensus uh every and I'm going to go over the conditions as I usually do okay but I think maybe a discussion right now or even just a a a tenative vote on that question of do you want the driveway relocated or do you want to leave it basically where it has to be relocated only if the professionals decide there is no risk uh to the trees those are the two choices and maybe like we can get I can get a sense of the board maybe you can pull so would board members raise your hand if you prefer uh no risk whatsoever to the trees therefore require that the Drive come off of driveway come off of Kyler as opposed to it it has to come off of Kyler only if the professionals um decide there is uh there there is a risk I thought that's what I okay not quite not not not not quite okay so so I'll make it more simple raise your hand if you if you believe we should require the driveway to be on Kyler yes period end of story right one two three four okay that is not a quorum not a not a majority so we'll um uh so the condition will will give some flexibility but still should be completely clear about no risk to the root zone so hopefully it will I I I'll just say you know really do trust our professionals and yeah yeah and I I my concern is that there's there are only so many unintended consequences that that we can consider within the framework of one meeting and sometimes in restricting one thing or imposing one condition uh we then end up with the unintended consequence of you know losing out on with something else which is equally important that we haven't thought about tonight and so that would just be my rationale for wanting to have slight allows slightly more flexibility that's a very fair point Thank you so what are the other conditions Mr Mueller okay so we minor subdivision approval the not the front yard variants and following conditions I'm going to first start with as I usually do with my notes and then I'll shift to the um uh to the me to to the members okay um plant tree uh Street trees on Jefferson um storm water will not flow into neighboring properties uh and it has to be the whole plan has to be approved by by Dan me I I think those are whoops yeah there those are our ordinates Jerry I'm not sure we need okay especially on the Storm order yeah yeah I agree with that any others Dave David do you well yeah I mean the ones that um staff for identifying the 25% f that they do not get uh F undersiz Lot F bonus and the 36% impervious limit which yeah those those are conditions that I was gonna um okay what about the his street trees on Jefferson I I think that's I I like that yeah okay corad has to front jeers not the corner W the Corner House the house as to front Jefferson right y yep then we talked about the uh the driveway um it will be relocated unless the municipal professionals aside there is no risk to the tree roots okay um I know uh Justin had indicated and I'm not exactly sure what the conditions on the ground are this is his last point on page two of his memo um the applicant um should well he said may wish to extend the sidew work from the existing ones on Jefferson along both propos Lots on Kyler I guess we talked about that early on since there are no other sidewalks on Kyler and since it's not part of our sidewalk okay plan I don't think that we should require sidewalks along KY that's fine okay okay that's fine and then there are a series of kind of technical stuff in the memo from Dan and Derek um updating the zoning table uh and this is Staff comments on his last page um applicant should coordinate with the engineering department who revised lot of dresses um tree survey and tree replacement um an engineering site plan uh review application Zing permit be files for each lot title blocks um now it say Dan suggests the floor area calculations for the dwelling on Kyler will need to include the proposed attached garage um then a a pen ends to be located legal descriptions uh subdivision plan provided um the engineering department Vig digital form uh D documents approved by by me before filing with M County planning board um and submission to the Mercer County planning board what about the question I guess it's the only other one um they said they're just going to build two houses um they're not going to build any adus do we want to require that we can do that if we want but we don't have to we're going to limit the square footage go ahead Lise sorry Jerry to put to no no no cut you off um one precedent I don't want to set is to suggest that we should not permit adus okay so so I mean because I think that would just fly in the face of Municipal policy and smart plan planning so I I trust that the that the applicant is going to do what they say and they're planning to build um two houses uh and but I I I would not want to put a condition in there that says they cannot at any point consider a design that includes an uh an Adu if as long as they comply with these 25% maximum f the impervious cover limit David you have a comment yeah just to give a little bit of comfort to the neighbors who sort of are is inclined to limit the unit you know the dwelling units to two just to emphasize that if the applicant wanted to do adus they would have to come back for a full-blown site plan which they do not want to do I promise you so I agree with you Louise let's not put it in as a condition but the the neighbors don't just have to rely on the word of the developer when they say they're going to build two units and that's it um there's really a very very strong incentive for them not to do plus plus they're filling up the Lots the way it is so yeah they don't they don't have any square footage left over for adus thanks thank you David yeah so that that's it with the conditions yeah so it was moved by Mr Cohen was it seconded by uh presidents seconded no go ahead seconded by by Alvin Macwan um uh Carrie philli will you call the role Please Mr bodimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr Cohen yes Mr mwan yes Miss Nuka yes Mr odonnell yes Miss pearlmutter yes Miss saxs yes Mrs Wilson yes motion carried thank you all um and I want to thank the the neighbors as well um 19 people still watching but uh people are dropping off as I speak um anyway it was a good conversation and um a lot of important considerations and now it's 10:59 um David I moved to a journ is there a second second Mr bodimer and me and Julie all in favor please say I hi U thank you Mr Kennedy thank you Mr kitas I hope I did not mangle your name um appreciate um your uh patience with all of this and all of the things that you did to improve this plan thank you madam chair you did and will do okay good night everybody see you uh July 11th have a good night good night