Okay, good evening. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on May 28th, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13
of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the sunshine notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the
municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet, town topics, the times, tranonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on May 23rd, 2025 and
has been posted to the municipal website www.princetnj.gov/meings. Pursuant to the extension of the ongoing state of emergency by executive order number 292 in accordance with the emergency remote public meeting protocol for local
public bodies to conduct a public meeting without physical attendance by members of the public. Notice that during this extension of the state of emergency, all regular and special meetings of the Princeton zoning board of adjustment will be held
electronically via Zoom. Transmitted was transmitted to the Princeton packet, town topics, and the Times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April, 2020. Such notices have been placed on the
official bulletin board at the municipal municipal complex and on the Princeton website and are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of Sain to the Princeton packet town topics, the Times, Tranium, Comcast
Media, and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton. Notices have been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. Claudia, can you call the role, please? Miss Ten, here. Miss Wilson.
Mr. Floyd here. Mr. Shrivever here. Mr. Tenbomb. Mr. Stein. Miss Donna. Yes. Mr. Dokin.
Here. Chairman Cohen here. Thank you. Okay. Um we have uh three resolutions this evening. All were in your packet and are on the website. The first is case number Z24-484 53- 60 William Street. It's the
trustees of Princeton University. It's excuse me block 47.02 2 lot 36 in the R4 zone. Um, does anyone have any questions or comments on the resolution? If not, if someone would
like to make a motion. Dave, just one correction. Um, it as you indicated, it's William and that's what should be throughout the resolution, not Williams, but William. Yeah. Okay. I'll move approval.
We have a second. It was just an extension. Yeah, we have a second. Okay. Well, I'll second it. Okay. Um Claudia, can you call the role,
please? Mr. Dokin, you're muted. Yes. Okay. Mr. Floyd, yes. German Cohen. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our second case is case number Z25-611 141 Dods Lane block
40 4603 lot 22 in the R4T zone. Again, the resolution was in your packets. Questions, comments, or a motion? [Music] I move this.
Thank you. Okay. Do we have a second? A second. Thank you. Okay. Claudia, can you call the role, please? Mr. Dokin, yes.
Mr. Floyd, yes. Chairman Cohen. Yes. Thank you. Okay. And our third and last resolution is case number Z25-607 28-30 Humbart Street, block 25.01, lot 61 in the R4B zone. Once
again, resolutions in your packets, questions, comments, or motions. board members. Although our agenda described the applicant as Brook Holmes LLC, [Music] um in fact it should be
28-30 initial L Brook Homes LLC because apparently they created a special uh entity just to own this unit. So that's the uh clarification I would suggest. Okay.
I'll move approval. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Claudia. Mr. Floyd? Yes. Mr. Dubkin? Yes. Mcen? Yes. Thank you.
Okay, we have uh two applications this evening. One is was previously presented. All right. So, the first application is Z24-524 35 353 Cherry Hill
Road, block 4001, lot 10 in the R2T zone. So, who's representing the applicant this evening? So we we are here both of the applicants myself Moriti and uh Elvara my wife and
we have Marina which is our architect. Okay. Does the board want to hear from Derek first? I think she has a revised memo. Yes, please. Uh Derek will swear you in. Do you swear or confirm that your testimony this evening will be
truthful? Yes, I do. Thank you. Uh, good evening. As you'll recall, the applicant appeared before this board on March 19th, 2025 and requested a variance pursuant to NJSA 405D-70 D1 um a D1 use variance to
permit two principal dwellings on a lot. The applicant had proposed converting the detached two-story onecar garage structure located behind the principal dwelling to a second principal dwelling. Section 10B 255A which addresses permiss permitted residential uses restricts the
use of residential lots to one single family dwelling accessory dwelling units are a permitted accessory use. The board had concerns regarding the size of the second dwelling and the granting of the D1 variance. The meeting was carried to allow the applicant to explore options
to eliminate the uh D1 use variance. Um the applicant has taken advantage of some uh exceptions from F that are afforded to ADUs without basement. Specifically, a 48 square foot exemption
for a bike storage area um that's accessible from the exterior. Uh a 100 square foot exemption for storage space for mechanical equipment and or utilities including washing dryers. Um, and the definition also allows an exemption of up to 200 ft for covered
porches. Applicant has revised the first floor design and incorporated a 48 square ft exterior storage area, 100 square ft utility laundry area and 105 foot covered porch, reducing the F of the structure to 798 square ft, which is
under the maximum F uh permitted for ADUs. um structures now classified as an ADU and a D1 variance to permit two principal dwellings on the site is no longer applicable. There are still two uh D or
excuse me C variances. There's a sideyard setback requirement of 15. The proposed setback is 8.2 ft and the height to setback ratio is 1 to 1.5 and the proposal is 1:2. The applicant's requested consideration under the C1
criteria. That's an overview of the application. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer. Um, I have a question. I I wasn't at the meeting, but I listened to the video yesterday, and in the video, it was said
that the uh square footage of an ADU was limited to either 800 or 25% of the area of the home. And greater. Oh, whichever's greater. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. No. Good
question. Okay. If there are no other questions of Mr. Burgger, um please continue your presentation. M. Rebina, I'm not sure if both your uh
clients were at the uh March 19th meeting. So, and I'm sure you'll be providing testimony. So, we will just swear you all in again. And you all swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful. I do.
And Maritzio and Alva, would you guys like to raise your right hand as per Karen's? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think we were all on the phone, but Maritzio was um without video, so he
wasn't able to um provide testimony. Great. Is that okay to share screen and continue with the presentation? Yes. Let's see if I can make this work. Yay. All right. Well, we really appreciate um the continuation of this hearing and
thank you Derek for an excellent overview. Not much to add. Um, following our previous meeting, we worked um on the brilliant idea that uh was sparked by the hearing where we were working really hard to try to modify the second
floor, but the idea was we actually could modify the first floor and make the structure an ADU, which is what it really is, an accessory structure in the backyard. So, luckily, thank goodness, we made it work. So um as we reviewed
last time we um in order to make this a conforming application there are multiple ways of doing this is one is to demolish the entire structure which is not exactly feasible. Um the other would be to remove the second floor which we
was not working because at that point the whole structure would be kind of gone. Um, a third option would be to make the house larger. Uh, to the very excellent point of Mr. Dokin, that if the house was larger, the edu could be
larger. But what we actually came up with is um again following your brilliant suggestion of reducing the size of the ground floor and making a portion of the ground floor exterior space and a porch allowed us to make
this fit the requirements of the ADU. So we're very happy to present you this structure as a ADU which it really is. So we will briefly explain what it is that we did. So, uh, instead of keeping
the existing rear porch, we would remove the roof and keep just the ground floor patio. And then we would also remove doors and windows in a portion of this corner of the existing building and
convert it to um an outdoor space. So, make openings and it would be a covered entrance porch. Um and also we are making use of the allowable storage um um what do we call them spaces that
um ADUs could utilize. One would be u kind of a shed that's incorporated into the building for storage of bicycles and the other one is a utility/ laundry room which works beautifully. So from the
exterior basically the building remains mostly intact with a portion of it carved out for an exterior porch and the rear porch gets removed in this proposal. And then upstairs uh almost no changes. So as you could
see the existing floor is basically an open room. The only change there is the addition of interior stair. Um, and uh, what that allows us to do is now we meet all the ADU requirements and the only problem uh, as
Derek described that we have is the where the building exists where it sits on the property. It's still we don't move the the building. The building is still 8 ft away from the property line just like it was and therefore it does
not meet the current um setback requirement for an ADU because it was created prior to um the zoning being um created. Hopefully I'm describing that uh clearly. So to go back um to
relationship to the master plan, it mentions um that it's a really good idea and it's encouraged in the municipality to utilize existing structures and make the best use and adaptive reuse, which is exactly what we're doing. Um, in our
land use recommendations, um, accessory dwelling units are very much encouraged and our master plan suggests that it would be a really good idea to, um, accommodate buildings that predate zoning so that they could be brought to
use in our um, contemporary life even though they predate zoning. Um so we would briefly like to show and explain how how we're doing this. So we really believe that adaptive reuse of this
existing building with only a minor alteration will achieve um similar results as if we were to demolish this building entirely and build a new one which would be allowed and require no variances. However, um we believe that
um this configuration has a positive environmental impact of reducing landfill and saving um embodied energy that is utilized in the materials and you can see right here what we're proposing to do. So there would be the existing porch in the back would be
removed and this door and window would be removed and similarly on the side it would be an open entry into the existing building. We also believe that this construction being so much smaller than creating a building from scratch would
reduce noise and nuisance and inevitably um bother the adjacent neighbors. And we believe that bringing this structure to life and improving it is actually a great thing to do for for the general
neighborhood. Um on the next slide, we really believe that we can't think of any negative impacts, but this demonstrates the variances that we're asking for. So, as you can see, the existing building is
located approximately 8'2 in from the sideyard and the required is 15. Um it's a concrete block building. It's not something that's easily movable, so it is where it is. And um because it is um
uh my goodness. So because it's twostory, it doesn't um meet the um height of setback, but it's again it's an existing condition. It's not something that we're creating. Um so we believe that um there's no negative
impact that edus are allowed. there's no increased density over what would be normally allowed. Um, we also believe that removing the back porch and converting part of the interior space to an entry porch has no negative impact on
surrounding properties. Um, I think that may be the last slide, but if anybody has any questions, comments, we'd be happy to try to clarify or answer. But um again
we we thought that was a brilliant idea. The conversation that we had here last time that really sparked the solution. Mr. Abina, do you want to make this exhibit A2? Um absolutely. Yeah. So we continue the the slide numbers from previous time. I
don't know if that's helpful or not helpful, but um it's basically it's your supplemental slides now to show your your uh the updated design. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah. So, um I'm happy to stop sharing so
people could see each other and if we could help clarify or answer any questions, we'd be happy to do that. Board members, any questions of the applicant or the architect? I have a couple. One, what's the
definition of an ADU? Uh I mean it's an accessory dwelling unit can be comprised of three habitable rooms. Uh 800 square ft or 25% floor area ratio of the principal dwelling whichever is greater. Um there's varying
setbacks based on the height of it. Uh I could read the definition. No that's okay. You use the word dwelling though and this doesn't have a bedroom or a dining room and I'm wondering does that qualify
as a dwelling and or what is the usage what what is the plan usage of this? I would defer to the applicant for that from a zoning point of view. If you have a kitchen and a full bathroom that enables you to stay in that building and
you have a a room on the second floor which is labeled a play room. I'm assuming that can be a room for someone to sleep in. So I I think it meets the intent of an accessory dwelling unit. Okay. I'd like to ask the applicant what is
the intent? So we we um we have a three kids and we have three rooms in the mana house and kids are growing. Okay. One is 11, one is almost nine and one is six. And uh we have only one guest room and
all the three kids are living in the same room while we living in the master bedroom. And we have a regular uh friends and and uh our mother-in-law coming, my mother-in-law coming. And uh we are planning to give the the main
guest room to my elder kid next year. And we want to use this really as a as a guest house. So today is used like a playground on the top. There is already a bathroom by the way and the building was built 50 years ago. So we are not
modifying the existing building which has been occupying the land for the last 50 years. We're just using it for kind of a standing the current house and having a when mother-in-law or my brothers are coming they're sleeping
there and having a bathroom where they can have a shower and have a breakfast in the morning. That's it. That's what we want to do. Good. Thank you very much. Other questions, board members? Yeah, I was um more for completeness. Do
you have a slide that shows your lot relative to other lots and this accessory dwelling unit relative to other structures? you know
the one to the south and the one to the north. Do you have anything that puts it in context to the So if you look at the border uh line there is a 4 acres property there is no building close to
the border on the left side. So the on on the what we consider east side there is no building around. Uh the closest building probably is our garage. We have another garage close to that building and the closest building to that one is
on the west side is our neighbor but is um I think is more than 100 ft on the other side. So there is no really close building to this one. Well, once again, I ask this is something that the board if you have
something that the board I appreciate your description and I do the map. We do have the map. I don't know if he's in the act but we can uh um clearly I think direct you have the map and Marine I don't know if we have the map. Yeah.
Sorry, I forgot to unmute myself. Um yeah, so we in the packet um submitted um a site plan and also a um Google map view, which is a little hard to zoom in. So I just pulled up the same thing live
on Google Maps so you could see the view. So this is the house right here. This is the existing structure right here. And as Maritzio was explaining, there's a large empty property that has no existing home right now. Is that
correct? Yeah, that's the one that you were describing right here. There are no homes on this one. And there is an existing home right here down approximately south. And then this is in the rear. So the property line is, you
know, kind of about right here. And then this is the existing um building which is um fronting on Montdale. So this property, the one where the sideyard um is closest, the one that's supposed to be 15, but it's eight
currently, that's the one that's empty, right? Mr. Vina, did you say this was part of your application? It is part of the application, but it is a little bit hard to zoom in on that one. Yeah, it is on
page two. Yes, I think there were some things that we never we didn't get. You might have submitted them, but it wasn't distributed to us if I'm remembering correctly. And I think what you're referring to, including this, we we
didn't get it the second time either. Oh, I apologize. Let me pull that what our submitt is right here. Yeah, I think that's what you had up last time, right? Right. So, have that. I don't think Well, we did it. Hopefully
didn't get Yeah, that one we that one we do have, but it's hard to tell where your property is. So, right here, you can see Oh, I'm not zooming correctly. Yeah. See, you can see this red this red funny shape. Don't want to call it
triangle. Um parallelogram. Yes. And this property is the one that has no no structure. And then this is the the house on Montdale in the back. So we're going to scooch over here so you can see this is the one that is empty as Marita
was describing. And then that's the house on Montdale. Right. And I was using the live version to zoom in a little bit better, but you can I think it's working with the Zoom. Not too bad. Do you happen to have a survey that
shows the adjacent properties? Uh the survey that we have is I don't think it has the adjacent properties. It's just has the existing property. So we have a original survey
from um when these owners purchased the property. Let me stop sharing and pull that up. Hold on one second. Uh we have it right here that you could see right here.
Okay. Yeah, that that's the guy right here. Yeah. And that's that porch that has a roof that we'll be taking down. the de of pro perspective. You can see where our main house is. That's probably
the closest building to that property. Our neighbor on the west side, which is Jerry. You don't see the house on on the bottom of the chart. His house is almost same distance as our house approximately right here. Right. Yeah. Exactly.
Approximately. Yeah. Close to the street. And the other neighbors are really on the other side of the of the land. So very far. Yeah. And you could see this one says right here, a little hard to see, 8.2. That's the existing distance from the property line.
Yeah. Thank you, Benny. Could you make sure that the board secretary gets a copy of exhibit A2, the one that you just presented tonight? Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, any other
questions? I have a question. Um, is it your intent to build this as you're showing it? I mean, you have a very tight first floor, a bathroom that's I'm not even sure it's
workable and a very small kitchen cut off by the stair and then a completely open second floor. Is that is that the intent of the what you is that what you're going to build? Well, we don't need more than that. We have a kitchen in the main house. This is really like a
guest room. So, it's a space where kids are playing in winter. Uh there is a sofa bed where somebody can sleep when he's coming. And we just need you see the kitchen is very small. It's just
prepare breakfast and a bathroom for a you know simple I mean as is today the only thing we want to add is a shower. So in the morning you don't need to come to the main house. you you can have some privacy and and that's it. It's not a it's not a big construction to be
honest. It's a very very small shower. Very small. Um Okay. So, the the second floor will be opened. Just one big room. Yeah, it's Yeah, it's like a studio. We don't need more than that, honestly. Okay. Okay.
That was my question. Board members, any other questions? All right. So, if there are no more questions, do you want to say we're going to open this up to the public. Uh see if there's any anyone who wants to
speak on behalf of this application. Uh but you want to say anything before we do that, sum up what you said or anything. We'll be happy to summarize after if that's possible. But I think pretty much unless there are any questions, we we feel that um we took
the board's um suggestions and we thought there were sparked really good ideas and uh we're so excited that it made it into the ADU requirements and here it could be what it really wants to be. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh we're going to
open the meeting up to the public. Uh Claudia, has anybody indicated that they want to speak on their beha on this application? There are no hands, but if you want to let them know that they have to raise their hand. If there is anyone in the audience who'd like to speak on behalf
of this application, indicate that by pressing the raise hands button in the center of your screen at the bottom and then we'll recognize you and you may speak. We'll give it a second here. Okay, there are no hands. No hands. So,
we'll close the public hearing. Um, and we'll go into executive session, but before we do that, the applicant or the architect can make a closing argument. Um, I I will attempt and then emergency,
if you are going to help me out. I think again we're uh we were grateful for the suggestions. We're really thrilled that um this project now meets the ADU requirement and no devariance needed. The only variances that this project is
asking for are due to the existing location of the structure that predates the zoning variances. We believe that um there are no negatives. Um the project is reducing the existing building bringing it up to the 21st century
standards and we also believe that in our master plan ADUs are very much encouraged adaptive reuse is very much encouraged and legacy buildings that have predated um zoning are encouraged to continue their use and I think this
is exactly what we're proposing. Um, on a personal note, for these homeowners with a very small home and um, this provides a wonderful opportunity for their family to enjoy and get the best use of their property and visiting family. So, uh, we're grateful for the
consideration. Did I explain everything that you guys feel is true? Yeah, absolutely, Maria. for us was honestly a very simple project and now we understand with all the rules it became a little bit complex but at the end the intent was very basic you know use the
space we have do not expand any externally any structure just leverage the property we have that's was the intent and now we understand we need to comply with the law and I believe we have done that so we uh uh we truly
believe there is no uh external impact and there is a huge benefit for us for our family members coming and visiting us. That's it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um we will go into executive
session now. Board members, any questions or comments or discussion? I have one question about ADUs in general. Um, is there any restriction one way or the other about using an ADU as an Airbnb?
Not at this moment in time. Okay. I mean, Airbnbs are not permitted. So, uh, I know they're everywhere, but um, technically anything that's not permitted explicitly in the code is is
not permitted. So, uh, but I I anticipate there will be regulations. um soon on Airbnbs. So, if I understand you correctly, this could not be used as an Airbnb, but it seems like it that
happens all over the place anyways. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. And and main houses are used as Airbnbs. I I know that very well. Yes. Don't we all? Okay. Any
other comments? I'm actually relieved that um the applicant has reduced this to um the you know to meet the ADU requirements and I would be in favor of
granting the C variances. Yeah, I I think it's simplified things for us and presidents and their intended intensity of use is the same, not that great. Um, and the reason I asked for, you
know, sort of the different lots is because no one's really impacted by the setback um or the um the height um closest neighbor being I guess to the
west and this garage or ADU is set back in the the back part of the lot. So I I don't see any problem of impact at all. Green. I don't know if that was a motion
that Donna made or No, that wasn't a motion. Okay. That was a comment. Got it. I I would move to approve it. I I think it makes a lot of sense this this solution and um you know make use of a masonry structure that exists.
Uh and and uh our concerns were addressed. I think I I'd second Bernice's motion. Did you make a motion, Bernice, or was that I did. Yeah, I did. Okay. Okay. All right. And you seconded it, Haron. Yes,
I seconded it. So, you uh is there any discuss any discussion on the motion? Okay. Uh Claudia, can you call the role, please? Miss Chen, yes. Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr. Strive, yes. Mr.
Tenbomb, yes. Miss Donna, yes. Mr. Dokin, yes. Cohen, yes. Thank you. Is approved. Thank you. Okay. Well, enjoy your property. Thank
you so much. And then we will um Would you like us to submit hard copies of the survey or just email them to Claudia? You mean the survey or exhibit A2? The the whole thing? The whole thing. Uh
Claudia, what do you prefer? Digital or hard copy or both? You can just email it to me. I'll print it out. I just need to have it in the file. Okay. Thank you. We'll do just that. Appreciate your help. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll go on to our next case. It's case number Z24-515. Thank you. Have a good night. Excuse me. Just signing on.
Yeah. Thank you. All right. Uh again, KZ24-515, 347 and 371 Ridgefield Road, block 401, lots 13 and 14 in the R in the RA zone and the RB
zone. Okay, Derek, can you summarize your memo on this, please? Yes. Wait, we just Derek, before you begin, Claudia, do we have everyone from the applicant moved over now? I see Mr. Schmidt, but I'm here. Everybody's here. One. Oh,
you're all together. Okay, very good. Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Shotsman, uh, my my one second, please. Um, Karen, is all the paperwork in order? It is. The noticing is in order and the board has
jurisdiction to hear the application tonight. Okay, please proceed. Mr. shotsman. Do you need anybody else? Uh Matt Flynn who should be with us as well. I'm sorry. Say it again. Mr. Schmidt,
who? Matt Flynn, the planner. Oh, we have Mr. Mcdana instead, I think. So, Mcdana is on with us. Yes. McDuck with me, David. Oh, I got you today. Oh, you got Mr. Mcdana. All right. All right. Anyone else? We got Mr. Mcdana today. Is
the applicant online or No, the applicant is with me. Oh, okay. I couldn't fit them all on the camera, so we're going to have to jostle as we move along. But I'll be and Richard will be front and center. Once he sits down, you can see his face as opposed to the
jacket. And step down there, Richard, I just want to make sure that everyone is on. I don't need to move anyone else. We have Patricia um with us today with uh with Jean Geller, myself, Richard, and uh
John McDonald. I could have issued some people over to your way, John, and we could have spread it out a little bit. Uh you ready for the uh introduction chairman please? Yes please. Claudia could you please uh share the screen
with the subdivision plan. Thank you. One second. Yes. Thanks. [Music] I'll start while she's getting that in order. Um, Patricia El Keller has filed, excuse me, get the wrong memo. Too many
memos. Applications been filed with the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment by Patricia L. Keller seeking minor subdivision approval for a lot line adjustment with a variance request pursuant to NJSA4 55D-70D2 for intensification of a
non-conforming use. Additional requests are made pursuant to NJSA450 semicolon 555D-70D1 for conversion of a second story detached garage to a dwelling unit and continued use of a non-conforming
single family structure. The existing site is identified as lots 13 and 14 of block 401 and uh Claudia will have the map up in a minute. Um, and it's located in the RA
and RB zoning districts. Lot 13 is a 2.18 acre with an address of 347 Ridge View containing a single family dwelling. You can kind of see it in the middle of the screen there. Um, that's the existing
condition. Uh, it has one driveway accessing Ridge View Road, which serves vehicular access to the detach garage only in the rear yard. Uh vehicular access to the parking area for the single family dwelling is served by a driveway connected to lot 14. Storage
containers and above ground gas tanks are located adjacent to the garage at the rear within the sideyard setback which appears to be operating location for GH Keller and Sun Plumbing Company. Lot 13 is non-complying as it relates to the minimum required lot size.
Approximately 1.52 acres of lot 13 lie in the RB zoning district. The remaining 0.66 acres lie in the RA zoning district. Lot 14 is a 9.48 acre lot with addresses of 355, 369, and 371 Ridge
View Road and contains one three unit multif family dwelling and two single family dwellings. Lot 14 has two driveways accessing Ridge View Road with one serving a single family dwelling and one serving a nine space parking lot and
the driveway to lot 13. Approximately 1.66 acres of lot 14 lie within the RB zoning district. The remaining 7.28 7.82 acres lies within the RA zoning district. The applicant is
seeking a minor subdivision approval for a lot line adjustment to transfer 0.845 acres of land from lot 14 to lot 13 to make lot 13 complying with zoning as it relates to the minimum required lot size. The applicant is also
proposing to convert 1,000 square ft of the second floor of the detached garage that's located behind the main house to a dwelling unit. Um the applicant has requested a waiver from the uh fire protection map and staff has no uh
issues with granting that waiver. There are no uh new lots are proposed or existing hydrates are located immediately adjacent to these lots. Um as I mentioned earlier the property is located within the RB and RA zones.
Um, in the 10B, section 10B 2561 includes special provisions for tracks in the RA and RB zones. Subsection B1 states any tract of land lying partially within the RA district and partially within the RB district may be subdivided into lots which are also partially
within the RA and partially within the RB district provided that a any such lot non-complying with bulk requirements for the RA district must comply with the bulk requirements for the RB district and be more than 50% within the RB's
district and B the owner may not plat a number of lots that's complying with the bulk requirements for the RA district greater than the number arrived at by dividing RB acreage by the of the track by three. The total acreage of the site
subject site is 11.6 6 acres um approximately 3.18 acres lies within the RB district zone per the above note B the maximum number of lots permitted that do not comply with the RA district bulk requirement shall not exceed one
each 3.18 acres divided by 3. The proposed subdivision complies with this requirement as only one lot is plotted that complies with the RB regulations and more than 50% of lot 13.01 01 is located in the RB zone. So,
uh the subdivision chart um meeting I'll have to call you back. Shows uh the new lot configurations. Um and you can see on the on the lower uh drawing where the there's a Z behind the garage approximately 50 ft. That's the portion
of land to be transferred from the larger lot 14 to the uh lot 13.01. Um, the subdivision plot shall be provided to the engineering department in digital format to facilitate updates to the tax map and shall include two pairs of New Jersey state plan
ordinance. The documents shall be provided to the zoning board attorney for before filing with a Mercer County clerk. Um, legal descriptions of each lot should be submitted for review by the municipal land use surveying consultant. The applicant shall submit to Mercer
County Planning Board for approval. signature block on the lot line adjustment plan shall be revised to meet minor site a minor subdivision checklist item E and the applicant shall review the zoning schedule specifically the present precent of lot RA and zone and
the precent of lot R the percent of RB as the values appear to be inverted um discuss the NJSA40 col 55D-70D1 use variance on proposed lot 13.01 01. The applicant is proposing to
convert 1,000 square ft of the second story of the detached garage on lot 13.01 to a dwelling unit. Section 10B 276 prohibits more than one main dwelling unit per lot with the exception of accessory dwelling units in accordance with the provisions of
section 10B 255C3. The provision of this section restricts the size of accessory dwelling units to 800 square f feet or 25% of the total floor area of the principal dwelling unit. The proposed dwelling unit is larger than 800 square ft and exceeds
25% of the principal dwelling and does not meet the provisions of an ADU and is considered a second principal dwelling unit. Um use variance relief is required from section 10B 276. Um staff uh has a couple comments on the
applicant indicates that the portion of the second floor of the detached garage will not be converted to habitable space for the proposed dwelling unit. Um it's it appears to be approximately 1500 square footprint. The applicant shall advise of how this unfinished space will
be used and the board should consider how future conversion of this space could increase the degree of non-compliance. Additionally, zoning regulations require two parking spaces per dwelling unit providing two or more bedrooms. The applicant shall advise which if any of the four car garage
spaces are to be provided for the new dwelling unit as these are covered spaces, if they are provided for parking, they shall be considered in the calculations of floor area for the new dwelling unit. Uh building department requires that each detached dwelling unit provide separate utilities. If the
use variance for the second dwelling unit proposed on lot 1310 01 is approved, a condition requiring separate utilities should be imposed. Um there's also a D2 variance intensification of a non-conforming use
on proposed lot 14.01. The existing three family or three-unit multif family structure and the two single family dwellings are non-conforming uses in the RA and RB zones. The reduction in lot area of lot 14 for the lot line adjusters increases
the degree of the nonconformity of this use and requires variance relief pursuant to NJSA 40 col 55D-70D2. Um staff had to do a lot of research to figure out the the situations going on with these
properties. We reviewed tax and zoning records to determine the approved uses on lot 14. The single family structure cited 63 feet back from the street assigned an address of 369 Ridge View and was constructed in 1950. Behind this
building lies the other single family structure assigned as 371 Ridge View and in its setback 167 ft from the public rightway and it was constructed in 1946. The multif family structure is signed an address of 355 Ridge View Road and is
cited both behind the single family structures and it's approximately 290 ft from the public rightway and it was constructed in 1974. On February 15th, 1968, the Princeton Township Zoning Board of Adjustment approved an application
submitted by Jean H. Keller to convert an existing barn structure at the rear of the lot into a single family dwelling which resulted in having two dwellings on one lot as a single family dwelling at 369 Ridge View Road would also be maintained. The approval was conditioned
on the removal of the single family dwelling at 370 R1 Ridge View Road prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the conversion of the barn. The applicant was granted three one-year extensions in 1973, 1974, and
1976 to postpone demolition of the dwelling at 371 Ridge View Road. Um staff is unable to locate uh any further zoning relief to continue the use of this structure. The former barn structure was issued a building permit
for a single family residence in 1974, which currently is assigned as 355 Ridge View Road. The tax assessor property record cards confirm that the the use of this property as a single family as of 1979. The next available property record
card for this structure reflects that it was a three-unit rental dwelling in 1996 and has continued as such. There is no record of zoning or construction approval for the conversion of this property to a three-unit multif family dwelling. Uh the principal bureau,
excuse me, the Princeton Bureau of Rental Housing Inspections indicates that the rental housing inspections of the single family dwellings at 369 and 371 Ridge View have been conducted and that there is no record of the multif family dwelling at 355 Ridge View being
registered as a rental. Um, we ask that the applicant address how the single family dwelling at 355 Ridge View was converted to a three unit multif family dwelling. Permitted uses in the RA and RB zone are limited to single family dwellings. Um if the applicant cannot
present documentation evidencing the legal conversion of this structure use variance in exception to NJSA 405-70D1 is required to permit a three unit multif family dwelling where only single family dwellings are permitted.
Alternatively the applicant shall be required to convert the multif family back to a single family dwelling as is consistent with the 1968 approval. The applicant's narrative indicates that if the subdivision approval is granted, the
owner or contract purchaser of lot 14.01 will demolish the single family structures at 369 and 371 Ridge View and has requested a temporary D1 use variance for a term of one year to allow the demolition of the structures. The
applicant should address if this is the single family dwelling at 371 has been has received zoning relief to continue the use of this structure. If the applicant cannot present documentation evidencing the legal use of this structure, the board shall
carefully consider the granting of a one-year temporary devant variance for the continuation of a structure that was to be removed between 1968 and 1977. The RA and RB zone are permit one single family dwelling and one accessory
dwelling unit per lot. The applicant is advised that any future development of this lot that does not comply with the permitted uses above would require a Dvariance for which the applicant would need to return to the zoning board. Um, a D1 and D2 variance shall only be granted by the affirmative vote of at
least five members. No variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. The applicant shall address special reasons to justify
the granting the relief requested as required by statute. These special reasons must be shown to be unique or peculiar to the property for which the variance is requested and not generally applicable to neighboring properties. reasons why the strict application of the zoning prohibition of the requested
use or development would reprive deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the land or buildings involved and see evidence that the requested relief may be granted without detriment to the public good or impairment of the intent of the zoning plan.
The applicant must also describe how the proposal relates to the master pan plan, the proposal's impact on the neighborhood, the community's needs, and set forth the legal argument for the proposal, as well as other pertinent information. No other relief may be
granted under the terms of this section unless such variance or other relief can be granted. Um, I've already going over my stuff again. So, um, there's a couple more comments. Um, utilizing the municipality's aerial imagery, it
reveals that three storage containers on lot 13, that's the smaller lot with the uh uh fourc car structure in the back, um, have been on site for several years with the first placed sometime in 2008, second in 2021, and the third in 2022.
The applicant indicates these are storage containers for maintenance of the properties. The applicant shall address the need for these containers uh where there's a 3,400 foot garage located uh immediately adjacent to the containers. The applicant is also required to obs obtain a zoning permit
for these containers. Um there is also an approximate 20x 40 foot area between the storage containers and a detached garage on lot 13 that contains water heaters, furnaces, and appliances. There is also possible staging, construction materials, and work vehicles. Per Google
Maps, GH Kellerin Suns operate as a plumbing business out of this location. Business uses are not permitted in the RA or RB residential zones. The applicant should address the use of the site and the applicant indicates uh bulk variance relief is required for the
sideyard setback for lot 14 and the front yard setback for lot 13. These variances are not required as the structures are existing non-conforming structures. The proposed subdivision does not increase the degree of non-compliance of these structures. And the applicant shall confirm the floor
area of the existing structures on lot 13, including the principal dwelling, detached garage, pool house, and storage containers. Sorry for my long-winded uh summary there, but that's uh introduction to this case. I also have
Dan Weissman, the land use engineer here uh for any questions you might have. And we also have Justin um Leco, the director of planning. He's also uh written a memo on this case, too. And I offer any comments from those two gentlemen. If you have any questions,
I'd be glad to address them. Uh thank you, Derek. I'd just like to add something quickly. If Karen, you'd like, we just need to swear you in. And Dan, while we'll swear you in as well. Do you both swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Uh
thank you chairman and members of the board. Good evening. Um the only thing I really have to add at this time uh on the surface this seems like a simple two lot subdivision uh lot line adjustment to make a two complying lots. Um if it was simple I guess it wouldn't be here
at the zoning board. Um but particularly once you start peeling away there are what's going on on the site. There are a lot of question marks that that Derek just mentioned um between the potential plumbing business uh the the shipping containers uh on the
site, the three-unit building uh that that doesn't seem to have approval, the single family building that seems slated or required to go away 50 years ago. Um, so really no comments at this time other than just to echo what Derek said, um,
which was in my my final paragraph, my final comment, uh, that the applicant should clarify basically what is going on on this site, um, what they're proposing, uh, to happen if this subdivision occurs and then, uh, we can look at the menu of variances needed to
do that. Um, and the applicant can or will be required to provide the necessary testimony for that. So, um, nothing outside of that right now, but I very well may have more comments later as things get teased out. Steve, I think you're muted.
I'm not muted. Steve, there you are. Muted. Um, there you are. I was just wondering if Justin would like to speak at this time or Dan Weiss perhaps. Oh, Dan. Oh, Dan. Nothing nothing further at this time.
Thank you. Okay. All right. Do you want me to proceed, Mr. Chair? Mr. Chairman. Yes. Yeah. I I do have a request suggestion to consider in
their clarifying this as Justin is as to ask for. Um I would suggest that the applicant deal with the separate lots sort of don't meld them you know um go
from one to the other let us ask some questions on on 13 as you explain that to us and and then go to 14. That's what I suggest. That makes sense. I think that's a good approach.
Okay, Mr. Schzman. Uh, yes, we have three witnesses today. Uh, Mr. Schmidt, the engineer, will give you an overview, summary of what Mr. uh said and Mr. Wiseman said. We have the applicant here
who lives there. Uh, we'll answer most of your questions and discuss uh his business and his father's business. Uh, I want to make it clear that Eric
uh, Keller is is the son of the Keller who got the approvals way back when who's the his father since deceased and we have Mr. McDonald give the planning report. But, uh, you hear the testimony.
Um, this is what I call a cleanup case where we're going to get rid of all the um uh nonconformities and we're getting rid of the uh single non-S single family houses.
So, in the end, uh to some to give you what's going to happen, there'll be a one house on each of the lots. Each of the lots will conform except for lot 13 and will explain the 1,00 conversion of
the garage second floor, a place for Mr. Keller Jr. and his companion to live and continue on the small part of his business which was started by his father in 1953. So with that summary, we'll start
with Mr. Schmidt will be sworn in and he will give an overview and then we'll proceed with Mr. Keller Jr. and then we'll proceed with Mr. McDonald. Okay. Okay. And we'll disrup. Okay. Mr. Schmidt, do you swear or
affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. And want to give your professional background. Uh I've testified in front of uh Princeton planning board and zoning board for many years. I have 39 years of experience.
I'm a graduate of uh NJIT. I continue to do my Excuse me. I you have testified before us before we'll accept you as an expert in the Thank you. And uh you prepared these plans and you visited the
site and you're now giving your presentation. I'm I'm giving you my very brief presentation. Yes. Um, as always, I've been in front of Princeton uh planning and zoning. I'm very familiar with Derek Richard giving
a very detailed oriented u um essay on the property. He pretty much eats up all my presentation. I just wanted to go through a couple things, slow it down because there it's it is probably one of Derek's lengthiest reports because of all that's going on on here. Uh, I'm
going to start with sharing the screen and go back to um the exhibits that they brought up. Okay, you can see on the screen is the uh Oh, all
right. Does everyone see the uh existing features plan? Mhm. Mr. Smith, this is your minor subdivision plan, correct? That's correct. But yeah, I I do not have exhibits. John McDonald has exhibits. The only exhibits I'm using is referencing the plans that the board has
uh that was submitted to as the planning board. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, this is the existing features plan dated May 28, 2024. Um, which is a year from today. We we submitted uh was revised July 31st, 2024. And it was prepared by
Patrick H. Fatten Land Servey LLC as a requirement by your surveyor since the minor subdivision uh DS engineering plans title block was changed to Patrick Fatten and Patrick Fatten signed and sealed uh the minor subdivision plans
for our client. Um, as Derek pointed out, we have uh block block 401, the existing lot 13. Um, you can see my mouse, I hope, is the smaller of the lots. Um, its physical address is 347,
located mainly in the RB zone. Uh, the lot area is 2.1832 acres. It's in the RB zone, which requires three acres. Uh, therefore, it's undersized existing lot, as you can see.
Uh the existing two-story single family has an asphalt drive, a detached garage with storage containers, and a pool with a small pool house. The lot is partially wooded and maintained lawn. There's two driveway entrances off of Ridge View Road, one partially on adjacent lot 14,
which is the same owners of lot of of lot 14. What we have going on is we have up on the top of the page is an existing uh asphalt drive that provides access to the garage in the back, but it does not provide access to the house on along the
roadway. That access actually comes off of lot 14 and then traverses into lot 13 and then enters to the property. So, uh that is going to be corrected in the minor subdivision, but there there is uh issues with access to the house of which
is 347. Again, the garage does have its own access, but the house does not have access um via a driveway. It gets through 14. The lot coverage for the lot is 18.43% whereas 17% is permitted. Now we
go to the bigger lot uh block 401 existing uh lot 14. The area is 9.4804 acres. It's located mainly in the RZ RA zone which means it has to be a 4acre lot. Uh the physical address is
355 371 and 369. And the reason why I reverse these is I just go from left to right. The big house in the rear of the property is 355. The small tiny house in the center is 371. And the house closest to the road is 369. 355 is an existing two-story multif
family three family single. So the big house in the back that has three residents in it and we have adequate parking for housing those properties. 371 which is the center lot also has access using this parking lot and is a one family single family house. And lot
uh 369 has its own access to Ridgview Road but it has two access points. It has one access from Ridge View coming up and then it has another one uh also coming in off of. So there's two entrances to 369. So you know the lot
coverage for that is 3.36 whereas 16% is permitted. Um we have asphalt drive as parking patio area three dwelling units lot lot is partially wooded within m maintained area. So around the house, pretty much the same area of lot 13 is
is somewhat wooded maintained lawn, but the whole entire rear portion of the property is completely wooded. Um the purpose of this application, which is a simple uh why we're here, is just a lot line adjustment. Um what we're trying to
do is lot 13 is an undersized lot where lot 14 is an oversized lot, which are owned by the same applicant. We're just taking land from lot 14 to make lot 13 a conforming lot. The whole intent of this at the very end is that we would probably what we like to do is to sell
lot 14, remove all the structures and start from fresh. That's the whole purpose of this and then he retains lot 13 as his ownership, rents out the house in the front or whatever he he intends to use it and then maintains his business in the rear. Um we do have a
professional planner um John Mcdana who's going to go into the variances that are all required but that's the the gist of what we're trying to do here. Um which opened a very wick of of of comments which Derek is correct on all accounts. But now I'm going to go
to Oh, I just also wanted to site the lot is serviced by gas, electric, PSCG, water is public uh water which is New New Jersey American water sewers public which is Princeton, phone, century link and cables, Comcast. These are all existing utilities all are remaining.
There is no uh new proposed things going on to this property. So all these utilities will remain the same. Um, now I get to the exhibit which is the lot line adjustment plan. Again, this plan was submitted to the planning or zoning board dated May 28, 2024,
revised November 14th, 2024 as prepared by Patrick H. Fatten Land Server Inc. Um, as I said, we're trying to merge 0.8452 acres from lot 14, lot 13. So, as
Eric pointed out, the the line the rear of um lot 13 with the Z's in it. This is the new portion of land that we're adding to the property, which is 8 0.8452 acres, which gives us a
3.0284 acres. We were originally intended to probably give more property to the to this land, but you have this RAB zone issue going on. And the more we push it to the rear, the more the property gets into the RA and therefore
the more the RA becomes the 50% bigger lot then needs to be a 4acre lot and that just created a problem. So we kept the property mainly in the RV zone and the maximum acreage we could actually give it without going to the RA zone is
0.8452 acres. So the total area of this property will be 3.0284 acres and the lot for lot 9 gets reduced to 8.6352 acres. Um, with that said, being
the merging of lot 13, the lot coverage of 1310% is is now decreased. It decreased from 17 to 13 and therefore we're now conforming as 17% is permitted. The lot coverage for lot 14 uh was was a little
bit lower is now increased to 3.84% and 16% is permitted. So, we're meeting the lot coverage with this lot subdivision going on. As I said, the driveways were were major issues with this property. What we plan on doing is to construct a
new driveway completely on our property for lot 14 to negate the cross cross driveway easement that both driveways were using and then removing the gravel uh or the asphalt area on lot 13. and and that would create the two lots
having their own access. And the existing access way off of Bridge Road for that was accessing the garage. We'll add a little stem to connect the house uh for lot uh 340 for the address of 342 to have his own access. Again, this
separates the two lots alone. It makes the two lots conforming uh or the lot 13 conforming in lot coverage in in lot area and the intent for lot 14 with all these residences the the existing house 355 the existing house
371 and the existing house 369 is intended to be removed and it's also intended that this would also eliminate the existing asphalt drive that's on Ridg Road that services lot 369. Um, so it's cleaning up the property for the
purposes of selling the property in the future to uh to a home person that that would would develop this as a single family house. Um, lot 13 still has incumbrances uh that will remain which John McDonald will go over uh on reasons
why these these variances should be granted. Um there's adequate parking is that is that is needed for these these lots as they are presented right now and in the future and it meets the RSS standards. We're proposing uh no tree
losses and the increase in increase and decrease of driveways that we're installing and removing. We have a net increase of 314 square feet of new and impervious surfaces which does not require storm water management. Um, as far as res residential garbage and
recycling that gets roadside pickup on a weekly basis, um, I think that summarizes my end as an engineer of what we're doing. Um, it there's a lot of technical things going on, but I think with the the driveways and the and and
moving things around that we're going to be cleaning up the property. uh and it's going to be an overall better look uh once this subdivision is is perfected. So, anyone has questions with me on the engineering aspect of it, uh
I'd be more happy to help. Board members, any questions of uh Mr. Schmidt? Okay, please proceed. Okay, Mr. uh Keller, please. You want the screen up? You want the exhibit up or do you
need it or if we need it? Mr. Keller, could you give us your full name for the record, please? I'm Jean Herbert Keller, Jr. Okay. And sir, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful?
Yes, I do. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Keller, you're the son of Jean Keller, Senior. Yes. And you live now on Richu Road on lot 13 or 14? Yes. Okay.
Uh your father had a plumbing and heating business, didn't he? On the property? Yes, he did. And uh how many employees did he have there? And how many trucks did he have there? Uh in the uh in the 50s and the early 60s, he had
20 employees and ran eight trucks. And that was When did he start the business? Do you remember? He started the business uh January 1st of 1953. And as far as you know, he told you that
uh he got permission from the officials in Princeton to conduct his business on lot 13. Am I correct? That's correct. Okay. And what is your business now that you're doing here? I'm doing a plumbing and heating business also. It's basically a continuation of that
business only it's without the employees and all the trucks. It's uh myself and an occasional part-time helper. And what hap how's your business run uh for your clients who pull you off for plumbing uh help? Uh I'm notified that there's a
need and uh I go out in the van and take care of what the uh the problem is and then problem is solved. Is there any people who come to your house at all? No, actually I've only had one person in all the time I've been in business
brought their RV there to have the sink fixed. And you have some storage there, don't you? What what's what what do you store there in your business? Uh well, I st store repair parts and I store uh equipment needed for different types of
work because uh we do things that require specialized equipment. And where are they stored? Uh some of them are in the uh the north side of the uh of the fourc car garage and some of them are in
the in one of the containers. Okay. And uh uh you plan on cleaning up some of the containers there. Am I correct? Everything's been cleaned up. I mean, just listening to the description of what was on there that Mr. Bridger
wrote, most of what he talked about isn't even there anymore. and the house on lot 13. Well, one of the applications that we're making is for a T1D1 variance on the garage that
you want to should you gain approval uh to convert the second floor into a 1000 foot square foot uh apartment so to speak uh for you and your female mate to to live in and run your business. Is
that correct? That's correct. And why don't you uh want to live on the house on lot 13? Uh it's just basically too large. It's too much house. And uh what do you plan on doing? Uh and and
so some of the questions that Derek Frederick asks in his memoranda that he read uh he said that the applicant indicates that a portion of second floor of the attached garage will not be converted to
habitable space for the proposed dwelling unit. The applicant shall advise of how this unfinished storage space will be used and the board should consider how future conversion of the space could increase the degree of non-compliance. You want to answer that
question? What are you going to use the Yes, it looks like there could be up to an additional 200 square ft there. There wasn't anything that was uh allotted for in the design of the apartment for any type of utilities, any type of furnace, air conditioning, water heater, anything
like that. So that's basically what that area would be used for. And so that wouldn't be livable. It would just be used for utilities, not habitable space. And appropo of that, one of his comments was should you gr should they grant
approval? Uh you would have to have utilities for each of the for the unit of the house on 13 and the unit if you got approval for the apartment or the garage. uh separate utility meters and everything that's already in place.
Okay. So, it's already there. The Africa shall advise which if any of the four garage spaces, four car garage spaces are to be provided for the new dwelling with dwelling unit as these spaces are covered. They should be considered in the calculation of for air for the new
dwelling unit. So, uh, the applicant shall advise which if any of fourcar garage spaces are to be provided for the new dwelling unit. You want to answer that question? I'm sorry. For the garage space? Yes. And none none of the garage
space will be used for vehicles. They've never had vehicles in there. So, the garage has always been used for some type of storage. And if uh if it's the fact that has a garage door that's an issue uh to eliminate the possibility of uh vehicles being stored in there, the
garage doors could be removed. Okay. And then you answered two on staff comments. And then uh jumping over to 14, the applicant should address how the single family
dwelling at 355 Richard Road was converted to a three-unit multif family dwelling and he points out Mr. Bridger does permitted uses in the RAB zone limited to single family dwellings. the if the applicant cannot present
documentation evidencing the legal conversion of the structure use viruses in in exceptions to NJSA4 55D1 is required to permit the three-unit multif family dwelling where only one single family dwelling are
permitted. Alternatively, the applicant shall be required to convert the multif family dwelling back to a single family dwelling that's consistent with the 1968 approval. That's what you're going to do. You're going to get rid of the multif family dwelling. Now, tell us
about the tenants in that multif family dwelling at 355. Well, the tenants are all on leases and they've been informed that their leases will not be renewed. So, uh we're uh helping them the best we can to find new locations. And as far as
the leases are up in a few months, am I correct? It's not years. No, they're number of months the leases are up. All right. And then you need let's say to the fall to make sure that they're all out that one tenants can get out and
find new air and new spaces. So if you got approval that you you need some more time other than in a couple of months to get the the tenants out. Correct. Correct. Correct. And I might say, and I might interject, that under NJSA
2A18-61.1, since you're removing the property from uh temporarily for uh non-tenant purposes that uh that statute, which is the tenant bill of
rights, doesn't apply. And then I'm adding that the R. And then number three, um, uh, the or and incidentally, um, the, uh, address at 371,
uh, the that that is a single family dwelling. That's on lot 14. That's going to be demolish. Am I correct? That's correct. We we've gotten two quotes for that already. And so you've you've uh you've you're you're going to sign a
contract. You have two proposals to have it demolish. Am I correct? You're correct. And upon my advice, I told you and the reason why we're doing 371, I might interject, is that was supposed to be done, as Mr. D uh Bridger pointed out
uh when your father got the original approval, he got some extensions, but he uh but he what happened after that? You you've never he never told you that he got further extensions. Well, he didn't, but he also got sick in that time
period. So, after the end of it, I was just noticing on the date when that was. That's about when he had the cancer treatments. And so, that's going to be demolished. And in fact, in order to make sure to guarantee to the municipality of Princeton, uh, I advise
you that we need a performance bond to get it demolished. And should you gr should you be granted approval uh we're going to post a performance bond uh to uh guarantee the removal of
371 ridu since it was uh mandated by the original approval he got when he converted the barn. Am I correct? You're correct. All right. Uh so that's that's uh 14 and the other
the other uh dwelling. So there on lot 14 there will either be one dwelling or all of them will be demolished and it'll be sell it to somebody for uh to construct one single family dwelling
there. Am I correct? That's correct. Okay. And um the other staff comments uh we talked about the containers. Uh uh so you you really won't need this is
additional staff comments on page oh it's 4.0. So, you really you really uh what are you going to do again to repeat with the storage containers? Well, the containers right
now are one of the containers has all the equipment for maintaining the property, lawnmowers, chainsaws, snowblowers, everything that's in there. And then one of the other the other container there has things that we've been accumulating that if there's a future apartment to be built that the
things that are stored in there currently would be used for the construction of that apartment. And he they point out there's an approximate and Mr. Bridger read this 20 foot by 40 foot area between the storage containers and detached garage on lot 13
that contains water heaters, furnaces and appliances. There's also possible stage own construction materials and work vehicles. For Google Maps, GH colorance on operator as a plumbing business at this location. You described your plumbing business. Business uses
are not permitted in the RAB residential districts. The applicant should address the use of the site. As you said, you have to you continue on a business that that was um nonconforming. I might add
as a legal matter uh the Cox points out that the zoning board addressed the uh fact of the ordinance. Mr. Bridger was kind enough to supply me all the old ordinances in Princeton. And in
1938, which was the first ordinance uh zoning ordinance, uh the they permitted uh home occupations in uh the u in all residential zones. And it could very
well be that they considered this a home occupation and it's been going on for 73 years. And my argument would be that the zoning board uh could draw an inference that this is what happened and it's been
going on for 73 years and as far as you know, Mr. Pillar, nobody ever told you no. But nobody ever made a complaint about your business. Am I correct? never had a complaint. And as far as what the
business would be, uh what about your neighbors? How far away is it from your neighbors, especially in the back there? Oh, well, there's hund several hundred feet away or more for the house that was built down in the
woods. So, there's woods there. Am I correct? Correct. Okay. And uh do you know the floor area on existing structures on law 13 at all? The total floor area uh on uh on the
house on on 347. Yeah. Yeah. If you give me a minute. Um I think it's around uh 3200 square feet just off the top of my head. Okay. And as as you said there are you need
the you need oper you the the house on lot 13 is too big and you need to live somewhere you've been living there all your life and the thousand square feet convergence should you get approval the
second floor of the garage will be adequate for you and your mate to to live in and run your business. Am I correct? That's correct. There any uh other [Music] uh thing we want to add?
Um any more questions for you? And I think I covered what Mr. Bridgetger raised. Um [Music] just a clarification because it's not the volume isn't very loud. Um
um in terms of being able to hear you, um you just testified, if I heard that correctly, the principal dwelling on lot 13, you said it's 3,200 square ft approximately. I'm I'm Yeah, I was looking that up. I have that here somewhere. I think that's
approximately what it is. Okay. And so your plan though is to keep the single family home and you want to convert the second floor of the detached garage for you and your partner to live in. What do you plan to do with the
single family home on lot 13? Well, it's current it's currently a rental. It would just stay as a rental. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board of this witness? from the board or the board members.
I have no Okay. I just need a little clarification. What is the address of the building you want to build the seconds story uh unit on? Is that
355? Uh second story uh 355 is a multif family dwelling on lot 14 to be 140 on 01. Uh the uh lot 13 is uh 347 347 347.
Okay. 347. Thank you. Yeah. So that stays and assuming he grant approval for this uh what I call cleanup application. He just needs the the D1 varants for
the garage conversion because it's over 800. It's over 100 square 800 square ft by 200 square ft. the size of parking lot, a parking
uh small parking area and um that's what that's what he needs and he needs to continue on with his business. The other the the uh the law 14 pointed out by uh this this uh the applicant's testimony
and Mr. commit testimony. Uh we're we're knocking down 371 and we're posting a performance bond because that was supposed to be done years ago and as testimony of Mr. Keller, his father was supposed to get extensions but he got
cancer. He got sick and he subsequently died. So we're going to clean that up now and we're going to have a performance father. Make sure it gets done which should have been done a while ago and until Mr. Richard pointed that out when we when we filed this
application. You know, no one Mr. uh Keller Jr. thought it was it was legal. He didn't know. His father told him so and he knew he got extensions, but he didn't know how many extensions he got. So, we're going to get rid of that. And
so in the end and then the 355 which was uh made a three three unit single uh three unitit residential. We're going to get rid of that. We're going to convert that either to a single
family if it if it stays and demolish. with volat 371 and the other one uh which would be uh uh 369 is going to go. So you're going to have one
dwelling single family dwelling on lot 14 and that's the and it conforms and that's that's the per we're we're cleaning it up as well as doing as Mr. Schmidt said is wells making the
lots conform to the RV zone uh because they both live they both in lots are both in both zones and so you know we're just cleaning everything up which which
admittedly should have been done a while ago but nobody knew about it until Mr. Bridger researched everything Mr. the wise men researched everything and so this is what we're doing.
Yeah. Just just for clarification. So your client is proposing for lot 14 they will post a performance bond to demolish 371 Ridge View Road. Correct. Correct. All right. Then
369. Are you planning on demolishing that as well? Yeah. We were gonna have we're gonna either have 369 three there's gonna be one is either be demolished or sold with the other with
with 355 demolished and uh and uh and three three there going to be one going to be one 371's got to go. So that's gone. So, you have two drawings,
355 and 369. 355, we don't know how that became a three uh three unit house. So, we're going to convert that or demolish that. Uh so, uh if it's if it's converted, it'll be
one single family dwelling and the 369 the other house is going to be demolished. Is the bond is the is the bond you're per you're proposing going to cover 369 as well or No, it's going to cover 371 because we don't know what we're going
to do with 369, but it's we don't know what which one's going to demol 371 has to be demolished, Mr. Casey, because that was supposed to be done when I understand senior original approval. So, we got to
get rid of that. That should have been done years ago. So, so 371 is demolished for sure. What's going to happen with 369 or 355? We don't know. But it's going to be either one or the other. Three, if 355
stays, it's going to be converted into a single family dwelling. If it's demolished, then the nonconformity is gone. If 369 uh is demolished, then 355 will be
uh converted into a single family dwelling, which it should have been done, which no one knows how it got converted. No one knows. It's been done, as Mr. Bridget talked about, years and years ago. Nobody knows. The person who
converted it or did it is now dead. So, your client wants a I'm looking at Mr. Bridger's memo, a temporary D1 use variance for a year that I guess he can determine whether which structure he's
keeping 355 or 369 or or none or both of them are going down. They're going to both of them are going down. Could be. Could be. We don't know yet, but there's only going to be one single 371's going to be
gone because that should have been done. So, you have two two houses. You got 369. You got 369 and 355. 355 is a three family, three unit blowing. That's going to be converted if
it stays. And then 369 will be demolished. If 36 if 355 gets demolished then the uh the non-conformance is gone. But so you got so you have one house on
lot 14. That's what's going to happen. Okay. So everything then conforms the then becomes the only thing that that stays that we're looking for for relief is the conversion of the garage on the second
floor so that he can continue his business. His testimony is that the house 13 is too large. He's gonna rent it out and it's becomes a rental probably property for the municipality,
but he's and it's too large for him and his female mate and he he can live in a thousand square foot uh apartment on top of the garage and run his business with a one truck and and continue on that's
been done for the last 73 years. So, and and on a smaller scale because you heard the testimony. His father had many employees. And I I have a I have a question, please. Go ahead, Michael. Yeah. And actually,
I'd like to direct it to Karen because I I had some of the same questions that she's asked regarding 14. Um Karen, the temporary use, wasn't that going to be attached to
the the three unit rental? That's that's why I was asking. I'm I'm not clear on this at all. So, right. And if they if they for any bit of time keep 355 and
369, isn't that a violation? because it's it's two principal dwellings. So, I need a Well, I Yeah, I would hope we'd have assurances that like 371 either 355 or 369 is coming down
immediately. Well, we have we have tenants in there and they're as soon as the tenants get out and that's when it's going to be uh demolished. You can't tell it's out. Okay. I want Yeah. What's the what's the
assurance that you'll get get them out of either one of those trucks? So So we need until September, the end of September to get them all out. The leases are up and they have, you know, you just can't throw them out on the street on Ridge Road. Well, we
understand that, but we're asking what asurances there will be and that hasn't been addressed. Yes, that's the question. Don't answer Don't answer a question I didn't ask. Oh, answer one I you know which is what's our asurances?
Thank you Harley. And if you don't and if you're not providing any assurances on 355 and 369 um then say that we we intend
to get those people out because uh we want to comply to make this a conforming entire subdivision and that's what we're trying to do. What assurances we have
um you can uh you can hold up the subdivision until until such time as they're out or or whatever. I mean, uh jump in a second. Hi, Patricia Keller here. Just swear swear me in. Do you swear affirm
your testimony this evening, Miss Keller will be truthful? Absolutely. And Miss Keller, you are my I understand it been the representative of the estate of Burn Keller and that is the applicant in this application, right? Yes. Thank you. So,
I would just like to clarify a little bit a little bit of the strategy here and what we're thinking. So, here's the condensed version. 371 has to come down because my dad never took it down and we want to be conforming and compliant. Okay. Done. Okay. 355 we're taking out.
We've already given the tenants notice. It's going to be converted back to a single family home. Okay. So 355 and 369 are going to be single family homes. The plan is that once the subdivision happens, I'm going to be optimistic here. 8 acres and three acres were done.
The 8 acres is going to be sold. Okay. Then when the I want to make a stipulation that when whoever buys it either they're going to knock down both of the houses or at least they're going to at a minimum knock down 369. So you will only have the single family home on that
lot. Does that make sense? Miss Keller make I I understand your I understand your argument but I think what the board is trying to find out then is I I don't know how quickly you can sell it so that there'll be a
period of time where you have sounds like two at least two single family structures out there. So So 371 is coming down. Yeah. I've already been in contact with three different builders and realators and I'm
in the process of moving forward with this process as quickly as I can once I know what the outcome is whether I have eight acres to sell or if I have 11 acres to sell. So, I'm hoping it's the eight. That's my plan. So, that is the deal. So, I'm moving forward with this.
So, that's all I can say. I'm in the works. So, are you are you planning to do a contract of sale with 355 and 369 being the obligation of the
purchaser to solve problems? [Music] Well, I would say no. Well, if the if the temporary if the temporary use for one thing and if we give you
that then it's going to fall on the buyer to satisfy that. No, wouldn't it? Well, well, we can work that out. I don't know who's going to do it. Well, that was Wouldn't it fall on the buyer? I'm trying to We'll We'll do it. We'll
do it. We'll do it. We'll do it. And and I'm I'm sorry we didn't address 369 specifically tonight because as of right now 369 is approved use from a previous zoning board application. So since it was approved back then we didn't feel
the need to to address it at this moment and that's why we we little unprepared as to exactly when that's going to come down. Well, Mr. Mr. Keller, you I know I'm sure you understand that you can't all
have all those single family residences on one lot. So, that's why your lawyer has said you're going to bond now to take down 371 Ridge View because that was to have been removed many years ago. So, so, so yes, I understand that we
can't have them and we understand that that the uh three family uh one was just done verbally with my father that someone told him that he could have an apartment and a flat and a building, but he never followed up on that. But at the
time the uh that it was supposed to take 371 down, it was also approved at that time that 369 and 365 could stay on one lot. Yep. Yes. So in fact though, then you
really do want a temporary variance to let you have two single family homes. Yeah. On lot 14. Until we Yes. Until we get until
we until until we decide whether one of them is going to come down or one of them is going to stay. But both go down. Both will both go down. And there'll be a vacant lot and there'll be only the
the the the if the approval is granted. We agreed that there's only the one single family on 14 [Music]
again. How are you going to assure that to us? It's an enforcement issue. Mr. It's an enforcement issue and um it it's going to be done and the
zoning officer will have to make sure it's enforced. Typically, are you saying that are you proposing then that these would be conditions to the minor sub? Are you proposing that these be conditions to the minor subdivision?
Yes. Well, that would mean then that you couldn't perfect the subdivision though until the conditions were met. We will perfect the subdivision when everything is done. We will perfect the subdivision. We have
180 days. We get extension. we can peract uh the subdivision when the when there's a single family dwelling on each of the lots and the either the the three the
371 is definitely going and 355 9 are either going to be gone or 355 converted into a single family and 369 demolish or 369 demolish,
right? And 355 exists as a single family dwelling, right? So your position to the board would be that that's the assurance the board will get that you your client can't move ahead to perfect the subdivision until there's only one
single family home on lot 14. That's right. Does that answer your question, Michael? answers my question, but it also goes into um then it ultimately also says that the
the threeunit structure will at worst become a one unitit structure. That's right. Right. Yes. If if we're all clear on that. Yeah. So, forget forget about Yeah. We
don't know how it happened. So, you know, Mr. Bridget brought it up five. I mean he says as an alternative we can convert it to a single family. So yeah. So now it sounds like you will convert
it if if if um 3 um 55 stays. You will convert it if that's the final one. You will convert it to a one family. Very definitely. Yes. the tenants have already been given notice and they will out by let's say the latest September.
So the option of keeping it after the tenants as a three unit you're no you're no longer seeking that from us. Correct. No. Correct. That's right. Correct. Okay. We got somewhere then. Yes. Because Mr. Bridger brought it
up. Uh we were always the applicant always thought it was okay. He's he said there's no proof of it. Fine. And we're not going to argue with them. We'll just convert it. That's all. Convert it or demolish it. Get rid of it.
That's clear. Thanks for clarifying. You're very welcome. Any other questions? Uh, I have one. Uh, not to beat a dead horse on 369 Ridge View, but can you talk about the condition of that building? Uh, because
frankly I when I was out there a few weeks ago, it seemed like it might have been vacant, but is it does somebody live there? Is it habitable right now? No, it's currently vacant. It's currently vacant. Okay. So, the Oh, but it it's it's in decent
enough shape that you could bring it back if you needed to. Yes. Yes, it could be. Can I ask a question, Mr. Cohen? Yes, sure. I'm concerned by the timeline. It's a minor subdivision. You have
a 180 days or to with which to file a deed. just it seems like the strategies unraveling or it's unfolding in front of us here. It kind of feels a little bit like deja vu from 1970s again about the maintenance of these the maintaining of
these structures. And I I I frankly don't understand how if you never came back and honored your part of the agreement when this variance was granted in the 70s which was to demolish the one home how that vest rights to maintain
another single family home there. Um, but having said that, you have to have a reason for an extension for a subdivision and it's got to be it's got to have, you know, teeth and have basis in in it can't be because of
procrastination or the lack of demolishing these buildings on your part. So, I'm concerned about that not being done in a proper timeline and then coming to the board and and without a a good reason like you didn't get approval from an outside agency. Why should the
board grant you an approval? Well, well, first of all, it wasn't I that came for the approvals. It was my father. And I had no knowledge of of him even going into the board and getting these approvals. So, it wasn't that that I was ignoring to do them. I had no knowledge
that they needed to be done. And can I just jump into So, I'm trying to be proactive. So, when we found out that these things were not the way they were supposed to be, I'm like, "All right, we got to get 371 demolished. We got the estimates. All right, we got to give the tenants notice. We got to get them out of 355. Like, we are trying to be
compliant and that's all I can say. We're doing what we know is wrong and we're trying to fix it. We're trying to clean it up as Richie says and I appreciate that you've been, you know, very uh open about that. It's just I don't know what enforcement is what what tools do I have if the subdivision
doesn't get filed. We still have a situation with too many houses on one lot. I mean, typically we ask for some type of bond or money that can, but that's not with a subdivision because it's it's
dependent upon the subdivision. So, I'm looking for some enlightenment on how that how we can make this happen in a timely manner that doesn't trip you guys up when you need an extension for your minor subdivision. before the subdivision before the subdivision is
approved and we're going to demolish we're going to give you a a performance bond for 371. Okay. So that that's going to be that's a condition of approval should you grant approval. If we're going to if we decide in a couple months and we have
180 days of the well known land use law we're going to demolish a house the other house then um we'll post another performance bond that's all and you know it's going to be done.
We only have we have we have we we can demolish we're definitely going to demolish 371 and we're either going to demolish 369 probably and not 355. I'm thinking 369 will go down 35 or 355.
So we'll give you a prop eventually. I haven't worked here long enough so much. Can I ask a question Steve? Yes please. Could we flip the approval and make the approval contingent
on the other property becoming a single family property? Stephen, I think I think this is what the applicants been saying that they're willing to make that a condition and that they wouldn't be able to complete
their subdivision until this happens. But I think Derek's raising the question that uh the 180 days goes by, the applicant says, "Gee, we weren't able to uh get all the demolition done. We're negotiating with a purchaser." You know,
whatever the scenario is. And Derek's concerned the applicant will come back in again and say, "Oh, well, we need time. We need an extension." Well, that that's what I'm saying. We don't we don't give them approval until they clear up the other property.
Well, if 180 days goes by and if you're g to get we're going to do it before 180 days. If 180 days don't go by, the subdivision uh goes away. The approvals go away.
That's what happens. So, so if I come in and say we need more time and you say, "Well, you had enough time and we're not giving extension and the 180 80 days goes by then then it's all then it's then it's new. Then it's
new, you know, it's gone. But I mean, we mean it, you know, to get to get to quite frankly, I think that the the the more money as a monetary view is in the getting rid of all the houses on Lot
14. Quite frankly, it's a vacant lot. It's a nice big vacant lot on Bridgeview Road. And Mr. Bridger, let's just go back a few steps here. I understand that things have weren't done and they weren't done in the past, but honestly, I've lived on Ridgeview Road my whole
life and I'd like to continue to live there and I'm just looking for a way to cut to the chase of it that I can continue to to live there with the apartment above there. And we basically brought like my sister said, we brought all of this up front to try and conform.
The two acre that was cut off there was conforming when it was created. the uh if we were just to knock down 371 and get rid of the uh uh the additional units in uh in 355 so it was single
family 369 was previously approved when the other one was uh knocked down that it could stay there. So we're trying to bring things up to the way they are now. Uh to be quite honest with you, this is this is going to move very quickly or as quickly as we can possibly make it move.
And that and that's all I can really tell you. I mean, if if you need other performance bonds or other things to guarantee it, I understand that you have to look out for the fact that what gets approved is going to get accomplished. But there's no nothing on our end that's
that's not going to move it as quickly as possible to get it accomplished. I I understand you. I take you at your word. It's just like it's it's June now. So June is 30 days, July is 30, August is 30. that's 90 days. The tenants leave
in September, that's 120 days. Then you have if something goes wrong, you're at 180 days and you know is you're going to be out of time to get the uh subdivision done and then the extensions need to have a valid reason. So I just point I
just don't want to take you down a lane and then it's a dead end. But but is your biggest concern the uh the demolition of 369? Is that what your concern is? No, my biggest concern is that this whatever happens tonight is
able to proceed and get done in a timely manner, whether all three houses are demolished on lot 14 or it's just the big houses returned to a single family, whatever you want to do that it's done within the time to allow the subdivision. And I hate to bring up lot
13, but yes, you know, lot 13 is the ADU, the second residence. I mean, it's impossible for us from a zoning point of view to to separate that dwelling unit that's nestled on part of the partial
part of the the second floor and the stairs to it come right up through the you know the center bay of the garage which typically that would all be included as an ADU. Um so that would be the that would be the variance. I mean,
it's it's the way it's and I understand it's an existing condition, but this is things that we're trying to think about how to to work out. Um, and I just want to throw that out there because it's it is an issue. So, so you made it loud and clear that we got to do it within 180
days, otherwise the subdivision is not going to be perfected. And so, the hell or high water, they're going to do it within 180 days. And the sooner the better. And if you want performance bonds, the uh the applicant agrees to it. The we're
going to give you a performance bond for 371. And if we demolish 355 or 369, we'll give you a performance bond for that. What else I can recommend, but I mean that's that's what we that's the best we can do.
And so the board has got to decide on the basis that it's not this uh applicant uh that that made the nonconformity. It was the his father and his father's gone. So we we don't know
what happened. But it's not as far as the business concerned, it's not unreasonable for uh because of the 1938 ordinance that somebody made a determination uh that it was a uh
a home occupation which was allowed in those years in every residential district. Steve, may I ask a question? Yes, please. Um, Mr. Keller, where do you live presently?
I'm currently living in 355. Okay. And you are requesting a second principal residence on lot 13. It doesn't meet the ADU requirements because it is over 800
square ft. And Derek, I think what you're saying is that it's not just 1,000 square ft, but it's more than that because of the garages. Is that true? Yeah, it's impossible to to separate the
two uses. I mean, just because of the history of the way it was developed since it was built in like I think it was built in the mid 90s. So why 94? Okay. So So we're not just talking about 1,000 square feet that's being requested. We're
talking about more than that. I think you have to talk about the whole structure. I mean, but I mean, you could put a condition that, you know, it's tough to enforce, but that the residential portion of it is limited to x amount of square feet. Karen, I think, is that acceptable or it
is. I mean, as you said, it's really an enforcement issue. So, I guess at some point when there's inspections, um, construction inspections, then I don't know, at some point, you know, they would be made aware of that, that that's the only square footage that is
supposed to be livable space. So, the inspector would have to be looking for that when he goes out. We'd say those are the conditions. So, yeah. Well, that that sounds hard for the inspector. Um, Mr. Keller, you've asked for 1,000 square
ft. The ADU ordinance allows you 800. Is there a reason that this can't be reduced to 800 square ft? Well, it was it was difficult to get a room layout. The other thing the ADU only allows for is one bedroom and it needs to have two
bedrooms. So if we were asking for a variance for that, it made it a lot easier. Where the stairwell comes up can't be changed. And with the stairwell coming up where it is, it makes it difficult to uh to use
it as 800 square ft because it cuts it off where in the middle where a window is and some other issues that were there for when the building was built. Now the uh there's not as much square footage. the there's no way that the downstairs area would ever get used for living
space and that that can be corrected by removing the doors if it's an issue of the garage doors on there. That can be uh that that can be changed and it's just strictly the way the layout would have to be upstairs to get two bedrooms,
bathroom, and a kitchenet area and then and then some type of other open space there. And that's the whole reason why we went for the thousand square feet. There's more room than that up there. It isn't the whole footprint of the building because the way it was built,
there's a knee wall that was built in there that that makes it smaller on the second floor. So, instead of it being asking for the 1,200 square feet that were there, we felt that it would be more palatable to the board to ask for the,000 square feet. Um, all right,
Derek. Is there a requirement in the ADU ordinance that there only be one bedroom? Uh there is a requirement that limits habitable rooms to uh three habitable rooms which would be a living room, bedroom, not a kitchen, not a not
a bathroom or laundry room, but a dining room that's separated by a al cove from the the kitchen or one big kitchen living room area is going to be counted as one habitable room. So he did submit plans. Um, it does have uh what I would
call like a a great kitchen room area and two bedrooms. He he does have three habitable rooms. Um, I could you could see the picture that he submitted. I see what you're saying. The um
Yeah, I'm I'm just unsure. Yeah, it's it's just not clear to me at all. Um, Mr. Keller. Also, the um the main home on um Ridge View, did you say it was rented?
Uh 347. Yes. 347 has been rented for quite a few years. Okay. To how many families? There are two individuals living in there, a man and a woman, but they're not a couple. Okay. Yeah. I I I just have some
concerns about the proposed variance to the ADU. You know, the application before this, we you know, we had expressed concerns and they were able to reduce it to the 800 square ft for the ADU and then we're confronted with the
same situation again. I I don't know what what to say other than I guess I'd have to go back and see if there was a way that we could that we could fit in there that would would work with 800 square feet. I think the thing is with the one before it wasn't weren't they was the building
already constructed the way it was or were they doing knockouts or doing something else to make it have a little space because this is already like I don't want to say pre-made but the room like it's already kind of set up already with the square footage. Was the one previously the same way with 800 or did they knock out they sound like they were
doing a kitchen and a shower and some other thing? It sound like it was a little bit different situation. That was what I gather. No, I I think they they had some they they had a structure in place and and they had to switch it around a bit.
[Music] Um on the garage structure, are those garage doors? The picture I couldn't tell. I didn't drive all the way back there cuz on Mr. Keller on the twotory barn is that a
does it have four garage doors that open into the driveway area or the the one that's there now? Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, the garage doors open into the driveway area. Only one only three of them though are at grade to the driveway. The fourth one
is not. It's above. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I have a question. Yes, please. Um Mr. Keller, uh it seems to be that you had mentioned you intend to continue uh operating the plumbing
business um at this location. Um, and I believe you said that you would be renting the front building that's 347 and you would reside on the upper floor of the garage. Um, what what would be the use of the first floor of that
garage? Would that be for storage for the home occupation plumbing business? It would be. Okay. Um, so I think it's just important to keep that in mind because if it's not as part of the one principal dwelling, uh, I think it would be good to know that it's actually part
of the other principal dwelling that you're proposing. Um, and it's important to be reminded that the variance is for a second principal dwelling, um, not for the size of an ADU. Um, good point. What what is the position regarding
running the business out of um out of the back garage? I'm sorry. [Music] You you intend to continue running the business out of out of the um out of the garage. And I think you said what the
business consists of at this point is whatever you're storing there and you responding to house calls. Correct. So So there's nothing nothing there other than storage of my equipment and the materials that are used for the
business. Oh. And that's all there is. And and what kind of stuff is that, sir? Well, well, the uh I guess it's the tools that you would use for plumbing. It was the tools that you use for drain cleaning. It's the tools you use for
putting pipe together. Uh it's it's the piping. It's the fittings. It's there's a lot of stuff in there. The the repair parts that are needed when you go into someone when they have a leaking faucet or a leaking toilet or all those different things. And unfortunately,
years ago, everything was was pretty much the same and you could use generic parts. Nowadays, the manufacturers have found that if you sell their part, if they sell their part, they make more money. So, they're much more little things that have to be kept in stock.
And and you're going to propose to store everything in the in the garage that that first floor garage and not in the present storage units that are there. Well, the present storage units, like I said, they have and I imagine it could
be relocated in there. We're currently going through the things that are in the garage because they've been there some of them since the business was first started. And that's why they're being sorted and and disposed of, either recycled or sold or gotten rid of. And probably when it's all done, yes, the
tools could also be sold kept in there that are in the one bin. And the other bin would probably remain because it has all the lawn care stuff, the lawnmowers, the the chainsaws, the snowblowers, all that kind of stuff. And the third bin is
stuff that currently is has materials that are gathering if we're able to build a future uh apartment, and that would no longer be necessary, too. Is anything currently stored in the front house? The 347
in the what? No. No, that's a rental home. No, no, it's a rental house. Okay. So, nothing's being stored in there for the business? No. Okay. Um, Derek, is there I'm just wondering who I ask of the township about the business. Is Is
this an issue? Is it not an issue? It's It's We're uh not a permitted use. Um I don't necessarily think if I was making the call, I wouldn't call it a home occupation. I don't think that's the intent of it, but uh you know, he's provided testimony and I think the board
has to rely on the applicant's testimony and analyze that. Uh but the only permitted uses are single family dwellings, accessory dwelling units, and home occupations, which are very limited to like no outdoor signage, 400 square
ft of the first floor of the building. And it's it's a very limited scope. this far exceeds um do so we don't know if he meets the ordinance for a no he we're saying he does not meet the ordinance he does not that's why we're it's not D
it's not allowed to have this business at that location so the applicant has argued that going back in time to 1938 Yeah know I heard that had an ordinance
it said you could have a home occup occupation didn't define a home occupation is that a home occupation with a permit you could conduct that kind of business then the ordinances were uh amended in 1955
and then I think after that it it moved shall we say into more um modern times and in the 70s it was amended and then continued to be amended. So, one of the issues for the board is the applicant has said his father told him when he was
alive that he got permission to have the plumbing business there. Um, I'm not sure how relevant that is. I mean, what Mr. Keller believes, I I don't think
that anybody is questioning him saying because he's not the one that began the business. Uh so for the board I I think perhaps the issue would be more if you believe that this was a home
occupation, right? And it doesn't seem to be debated that it began in 1953. You know, was it allowed then or not? If it wasn't, then the applicant has said then they would like a variance for that. if they've been there a long
long time. So they're asking the board, well then just give us a variance. You know, if you're not persuaded by, you know, what Mr. Keller Senior said in the past to his family about because there's no record of any
approval or permit for it and that Karen. Yeah. and and that would be if I'm understanding correct is covered um the variance request for a D2 would that non-conforming use is that
covering well actually that would be the that would be a D well Derek's talking about well he's he's talking about two things he's talking about the D2 would be because lot 14 is being reduced in
size so Derek's comment was with three unit multif family structure and two single family dwellings, right? You're intensifying the non-conforming use. The applicant has said tonight that shouldn't be a concern.
Okay. Yeah. In a bond to take care take down. So, there'll only be one single family home on that property. But what they do need, if you don't find this testimony persuasive about uh
approval long ago, um they would need a use fair to conduct the plumbing business on lot 13. Okay. So that's gosh that's that's not being asked in the original you know
submission to to us. Well, I think what the applica what the applicant has argued is that they think they believe
that the board should weigh? Was the business begun in 1953? Okay. Yeah. Was there an approval for it back then? If not, then they acknowledge they would need a use variance to continue the use. All
right. That one that one doesn't bother me so much. I think a business has been in I'm jumping the gun to discussion, but there should be should be some kind of grandfathering thing in there, isn't there, Karen? Or I I guess it's just been ignored.
Well, I I won't say it's been ignored. I I guess it's not something that um visible there. You know, there was any nothing was drawn no attention was drawn to it. And so, and also there's, you know, residences there as well. So, I I
don't believe that it would stand out as a nonresidential use. So, if you weren't looking for it or or had a complaint about it, there wouldn't have been there would have been no reason for the zoning
officer to call it out. And I don't think it's disputed that it's been used that way for a long long time. It's a question of was it allowed long ago? If it wasn't
um then yes, they would need a variance now for it. Yeah. Okay. Uh I have a question about the the storage. I'm trying to understand once things are cleaned out of the containers
and consolidated and and and moved, how many square feet of storage are we actually talking about? I I'm not quite clear on that. And and then you're talking about removing garage doors. So, are things being stored
in an unenclosed space that's uh open? Oh, well, no. The the the issue was is as if the vehicle storage was underneath in the in the building. There's never been vehicle storage in there. The
garage doors were there strictly for convenience and to get air flow in the summer when uh when moving things in and out in the storage. Uh one side of the building was was storage for plumbing material. the other side of the building was uh was where my dad's shop was and
where at that time he had the lack tractors, lawnmowers, things like that. So, we needed a place to be able to sort things from the plumbing side to uh to get rid of things that were there. So, that's when everything that had to do with the lawn care was moved into these
storage bins uh the one storage bins to maintain it. So the one storage bin has all of that one. The other storage bin has equipment that's used uh for plumbing. The actual not the materials but the actual equipment that is used to
do the job. And the third one has materials that well actually has materials that are used for maintenance of the buildings, but also it has materials that would be used for the construction of a future apartment that we've been accumulating as things become
available uh that you see them and they're they're still good. No reason to throw them out. They've been put aside for use in the future. So, but long term, how much storage for your business is going to be on the property? It it'll
be in the uh long-term it will be just in the two doors to the north of the four doors of the storage of the garages. Oh, okay. So, so half of the the ground level. Is that correct what you're saying? Half of the ground level.
Okay. Yes. And are there a lot of deliveries for the the business for the Are there a lot of what? I'm sorry. Uh deliveries? No, less than my neighbor gets from Amazon. Less than what? Less
than one delivery a week. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I jump in? Yes, you can. Thank you. Uh, and going back to that conversation about the potential um, business use variance or plumbing business uh, use variance that would run
with the land. Um, I don't believe that's being requested to be temporary or anything like that. So, uh, I suppose and and Karen, correct me if I'm wrong, um, that it could be conditioned on only being within the building um, or or
anything like that to constrain the use. Uh but it would continue on. That's true. Uh I mean I guess I guess it could be conditioned as only for a plumbing business even though that kind of raises the question of well why
couldn't it be you know a business that installs windows. So they say I just need to have some storage out there and then I take my things out to someone's house. So um I think that's a good point. Um, and it would it would run
with the land. Uh, and there may be some conditions that could be imposed on that so that if it became another use in time, somebody else bought the property and they wanted to take advantage of that that there
could be conditions on um the intensity of the use. [Music] Chairman Cohen. Yes. Can we take a five minute break? Sure. Please. Okay. It is
9:53 now. At 9:58 we'll reconvene. Thank you. Okay. Rich on that if we have John John McDonald get John McDonald on I think that's when we start we should
get his testimony before we keep on so take this will he put oh he's controlling everything I'll say we might get brother since we have John tonight I like get John get him done yeah let's get him done so we bring him back
Yeah, we're not going to get done tonight. 10:30. Oh, 10:30. All right, let's get John on then and see what he has. I'll ask you John. Stop sharing the screen here instead
of muted. Well, you see the neighbors over [Music] [Music] Hey, Steve. Yes. There's something on your computer that every time you get a message, it beeps.
Oh, I can't get rid of this thing. You can't? No, it's a it's a Norton antivirus thing. Renewal that keeps coming up. I've been trying to get rid of it all day. I'm about to throw the darn thing out the window. That's an idea. Sorry about that. No,
that's okay. Are we Are we ready to uh Yes, it's uh Do you think we could get the planner on to maybe can clarify some things or plan? Let's Let's get through this and then we can do that next. Okay. All right. It's 9:58. We're Claudia, we
recording again? Yes. Okay. Okay. Where did we leave off? you you were in the middle of some board discussion, but I think Mr. Shatzman's explaining that they still have one more
witness, which is their planner, that he may have some testimony that could be helpful in terms of the questions that are being raised. Okay, board members, um, do you have any other questions of the current witnesses or Mr. Shatzman or
can we go on to the planner? All right, let's go on to the planner. Mr. Mr. Mcdana, you want to be sworn in? Yes. Mr. Mcdana, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? Yes, I do. Thank you. All
right. You want to give a brief benefit of your education, your professional uh qualifications as a licensed planner? Uh, sure thing. My name is John Mcdana. I am a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey. That
license is current and it's in good standing. I am also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. That's our national certification, current and in good standing. And I testify in this capacity throughout the state on a nightly basis,
including um your town many times. I'm familiar with your credentials and we'll accept you as an expert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. you visited the property and you're familiar with the municipal land use law and the land
development ordinance of Princeton and you prepare to report and you're going to testify now as I understand as to what your uh views are on the uh mislication as to the D variances
special reasons particular suitability and lack of the negative criteria am I correct that's correct all right you want to start off and give your report please? Sure thing. Um it's been a it's been a really good discussion, a good interactive process. I think um I can
boil it all down in about 10 minutes here for you you all and then certainly go into cross. But um Mr. Chairman, I put forth a couple of exhibits that I think may help um the board see what's going on on this property in addition to what it's already seen. And this is
going to be a um I think it's a three or four page exhibit. Okay, Mr. Mcdana. So, this would be exhibit A1. I don't think we've had any exhibits so far. So, okay. Yeah. Yes, council.
I'll call this A1 comprised of four sheets. And really um in my view from a from a pure physical planning standpoint, the applicant is doing two really good things here. Number one,
cleaning up the platting of land. Um as you can see from this first page here, uh this little well, we've outlined the subject property, um which consists of two lots in yellow. Um, you can see these little white lines which come from your GIS database showing all the lots
that have been platted. So, we're looking at two lots here. Lot 13 on your right, lot 14 on your left. I can zoom in if anybody needs me to just just say the word. Um, but again, you've got the little lot, lot number 13, and then you've got the big lot, lot number 14.
In terms of cleaning up the platting of land, this little dash line that you see here is land that would be transferred from lot 14 over to lot 13 to make both lots fully conforming from a platting standpoint. Um, in terms of both your RA
and your RB zone districts, which this property happens to straddle both districts, so you have a a split line condition. Um, so this little lot line adjustment that you see here, taking this demising line and essentially moving it back, um, will clean up the
platting of land and make both lots fully conforming in in that regard. I think that's a a fairly, um, obvious good thing from a planning standpoint. We've got some case law in the Piso Manton case, which essentially says the essence of good planning is rooted in
your zoning ordinance. when an application fully complies, it should be approved. Um, so I think that's pretty clear-cut again from a pure platting standpoint. The second thing the applicant is looking to do that I think is a good thing from a planning
standpoint and this became crystal clear when you heard all the things uh Mr. Bridger had to talk about in the opening there. This lot which you see on the second sheet or this property I'll say which you see on the second sheet of A1
is a compound. The compound is going away. There's a multiplicity of buildings happening here. And the the intent of course is is to simplify that. And we'll we'll break down what that means as we look at the next slide where I put some labels on uh the subject
property. These are aerial views that were taken about a month ago um by our drone. And we're going to start with the land on the right, which would be lot number 13. You've got the existing dwelling uh number 347, which is going to essentially remain as is. It's a
rental property. It will remain a rental property. Um, and then in the back here you have our applicant, Jean, who um is looking to reside in the upper level of this garage and also maintain his um long-standing plumbing business that's
been part of the property. This is this what's happening back here is really what's triggering the only relief the applicant is asking the board to move on. a D1 variance to allow a second dwelling unit if it were 200 square feet
smaller or maybe if it were to be 800 square feet and meet that requirement of the number of rooms that you all were talking about before. This would be a conforming accessory dwelling unit. It's not. So, the applicant is asking the board to move on D1 use relief for that
second dwelling unit on the property. Um and then secondly to continue this longstanding non-residentidential condition on the property again with reasonable restrictions that can certainly be part of an an interactive process on the use of of that land in
the back. But that's the I'll call it the D1 and the D2. the board may find that this is also a D1 back here because there's been no proof per se um that use was there um other than of course the words of our of our applicant's father
that he had the right to do that. So that's the the essence of the relief on what would be an otherwise conforming lot here um in terms of lot number 13 over here on lot number 14. I think the first thing you heard through David's
testimony at the very beginning, this bow that you see in the driveway is going to be flattened out so that when this subdivision line takes hold, this driveway is going to be fully on lot number 14 to the left. So, it'll fix that problem. Um, then this middle
single family dwelling, as you've heard, is going to go away. That's going to be demolished. there are apparently permits or performance um bonds in place to demolish that dwelling. And then there's sort of this interplay where um as I understand that the applicant was either
asking to keep 355 as a single family dwelling that's the multif family dwelling now or 369. We don't know what the future land buyer will want. one may want to keep that house in the front and have a big backyard. Or maybe they feel
the nicer house is in the back and they want to keep that. Um or they may want to work on raw land and take them all down. But at the end of the day, the stipulation is you're going to get one single family dwelling on lot number third lot number 14 to the left. You're
going to get the existing dwelling on lot number 13 to the right. And then um if the application is approved, this new second principal dwelling on the property in the rear. Um this is just sort of a reverse view
of that. Looking back at the roads, you've got 347, a pool, and the garage, and then over here you've got 369, 371, and 355. I can come back to any one of these um exhibits if the board would
like, but I'll just sort of pop through the proofs here. Um in terms of the justifications for the D1 and the D2. Um as I said, the justification for the subdivision approval, I think you simply look to the Piso Manton case, it's fully conforming. Um and in that in in my
opinion, that constitutes good planning and should be approved. Um in terms of the D1 the legal basis for relief is our Medici case and I believe the statutory criteria are met here number one under site suitability that the site is
particularly suitable for the use because the physical space is already there. It's simply a refinishing uh of space that's already there and the degree of departure from the zone plan is really not substantial. uh we're
talking about 800 square feet would be allowed as a dwelling unit by right as an ADU. Um so we are asking for relief but we always look at that degree of departure and um I don't see it as being a substantial departure here. Working
with space that's that's already there. Um, next part of the use variance test is the special reasons and looking to see if the application advances purposes of land use law at for 40 col 55D-2. I see multiple advanced here
including purpose A. The use promotes the general welfare because it does provide new housing stock in the back. Um, purpose G, we look to provide for a variety of housing options. Not everyone can afford or wants to live in a single
family dwelling. Not everyone wants to live in an apartment building. So this sort of becomes that missing middle that we always talk about with housing. That goes towards the planning goal for variety of land uses according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens. I
think the board can move on purpose M which is our planning goal for efficient use of land. This is adaptive reuse of existing space. And then finally, purpose eye, the promotion of a desirable visual environment. Retaining what's there and familiar in the local
landscape and familiar in the public eye, I think is a good thing from a planning standpoint as well. Next part of the test looks under the negative criteria. First, with respect to public impacts, I believe that use relief at the back portion of this site can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public. Visually, the reuse of the space does not entail enlargement or expansion of what's there. And functionally, as I said, the use is no more intense than a use that could be permitted by right uh as an 800 foot
apartment. Finally, with respect to the negative criteria, we look at the impact on the zone plan. And I believe use relief can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan. As I've said several times now, the degree of departure from the zone plan
is not substantial. It's only over by 200 square feet. A parking space is 10 by 20. That's approximately 200 square ft as well. So that gives you the the spatial ask that the applicant is seeking. I heard the dialogue about the
lower space as well in the steps and I think that's a legitimate concern and I would also offer there that the board can impose reasonable restrictions on the use of that lower level as well. So in that regard I believe the statutory test for D1 is met with respect to D2
for the non-residential use. I believe the application satisfies the statutory criteria under the coal and the Burbridge cases. We know that the essence of the D2 test is not as strict as the D1 test. We really look at um
site betterment. Um not whether the use belongs in the first place. In terms of the benefits, all of those use benefits that I just gave you as a whole for the project would carry forth. As you heard uh Richard or council say at the outset, the nice thing about this application is
it's a cleanup application. It's cleaning up um a number of existing non-conforming conditions, not the least of which is a non-conforming lot um and a non-conforming use with respect to the three-dwelling use in a single family
zone. Um validation of the use will recognize what has been there for 73 years. This is not a new use per se and all of the above promote the same purposes of zoning that I just gave you. A, G, I, and M. In terms of potential
impacts, it's so far set back from the road. You've got excellent buffering in place here that would separate any impact of this relatively low intensity use from the surrounding properties. Um, and again, the board can impose reasonable restrictions to ensure that
that use does not relies rise to the level of being substantially adverse. If the board to f find that we need to prove the use in the in the first instance here, I would say the enhanced proofs under D1 of sight suitability are met based on the uh physical condition
of the property, its longstanding um associated history with the use and the reconciliation of the master plan is met. Uh because we are clearly talking about a distinct site here with a distinct history that is clearly atypical of other lots in the zone. Uh
therefore, if you give this relief for this use here, I don't think it's tantamount to a reszone. Uh that's the D1 and the D2. Um to the extent needed, I think your planner said that we don't. Um some of these buildings have existing
non-conforming setbacks. I don't necessarily think we need to reprove them. Um I think your your planner agrees as well, but I do want to point that out that um as part of this application, the applicant would seek to continue uh non-conforming setbacks
related to I believe it was 347 um and maybe it's 369 on on the other side here on the on the side setback. So, uh that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Um Richard, I'll open up to any redirect from you at this point. I I see the hour and I'll I'll take this off the screen,
but I believe it's it's been a good back and forth. There's a lot to this application, but there's also a lot of simplicity to the application. Um, and with that, I'll pause. I'll say I believe the criteria are met and approval is warranted. Thank you, Dr. McDana. Just just for
clarification, you referenced the the need for a D2 variance. Could you just uh again clarify uh what aspect of the project is the applicant seeking a D2 for? Sure.
And sorry about the uh the rapid fire testimony. That's okay. Um so yeah, I just to go back to the screen here. Um in my view, the D1 is for the for the residential use. The D2 would be for the
nonconforming, non validated, should I say, commercial use of the property. It's this is sort of a a validation of that. Um, I heard some talk about the back and forth about keeping two houses on the property until sometime. I don't
know if that was ultimately resolved. Um, I guess that would be some sort of a temporary D1 variance as well to allow two single family dwellings on a on a one family lot. But Mr. Mcdana, so I mean a D2 would be
expansion or intensification of a non-conforming use. What do you think is being expanded here that's non-conforming? It's it's a it's a good point, council. And um sometimes as I read that Cox's book, he talks about alteration of a
non-conforming use as not necessarily an expansion per se. I would agree with you. This is not an expansion and that could be the justification. Um but clearly there is an an alteration of what's going on based on the change in the lot area and the change of some of
the other physical characteristics of the property. So I'll leave that to the board. I put down in my notes D2 relief if required. So, okay, let me find out. Got it. Okay, thank you.
Yeah, I'll take this off. Okay. Um, board members, any questions of Mr. Mcdana? I think um unless uh Derek wants to I I thought I read regarding the D2 in Derek's memo
that the intensification and the need the need for the D2 is because part of one of the lots is losing, you know, is giving away square footage which makes the existing
nonconforming Um, it's an intensification of it and that requires a D2. I read that some I think. Yes. But in Derek's memo, he called that out because he said lot 14 as currently exists has a threeunit
multif family and two single family dwellings. So, they're already non-conforming. And when you reduce the size of lot 14, you intensify that nonconformity. But here the applicant has represented
uh there'll only be one single family home on that lot. The other two So it's a temporary temporary T2, Mr. Floyd, because uh until the subdivision takes place uh and the two lots the two houses
go down and one house stands there. Uh it's an intensification of a nonconformity. And there's a case called uh uh Raspberry Kingwood Township. It's called Raspberry. The Kingwood Township
case by Judge King in the appellet division says that's a uh that that intenses the nonconformity and if Raspberries Incorporated versus Kingwood Township was the case that Mr.
uh Mr. Bridger's talking about, am I right, Mr. Bridger? I believe so. Um I thought M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Mr. McDonald was talking about the increase of the business activity with the trailers as a
other D2. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I mean you I thought so too. There's two Mr. Floyd's right and you're right. I mean and Mr. John is right, but Mr. Floyd's right too because temporarily
until the subdivision is improved uh and the town houses are down have an intensification of a nonconformity under Raspberries versus King Township health division case by judge Kane and I think what what was discussed
earlier was that the business use was the request was for a D1 variance right for that rather than proving out the non-conforming Well, you have to come to the conclusion, the board has to come to the conclusion
uh that it was possibility of a uh approval back in 1953 or they find that uh the uh the criteria of the D of D1 varants and you want
maybe Mr. McDonald will talk about that it's met then you can grant A1 barance but there is some semblance of approval and unfortunately the person who got it is no longer with us but you know in
those days although Mr. Bridger might not think that uh in 1953 uh that would be a he wouldn't grant a home occupation. Maybe the zoning officer at that time they had one in Princeton.
um thought it was I mean I mean you you can come to that conclusion it's been done it's been used for a business for 73 years without a complaint and you know that that that's something
to come to a you can come to a conclusion to but but Mr. Mcdana, what did you did you really cover anything about the D1 if if in fact the business is a a D1 variance? I did. I'll and I'll do
it a little a little more slowly. I'll hit I'll hit all the all the D's and I'm sorry I keep throwing this up there on on the screen, but one Mr. Mcdana, can we just get a copy of this when you're tomorrow? Uh this exhibit and call it Yes. And I
don't know, Richard, if you wanted to go through you or if you want me to just send it directly in, I I can do that, too. You could send it to Mr. Bridger at the moment. Okay. All right. So, to market at A1 as of May 28th.
Okay. So, it sounds to me like you could have two D1s side by side here. The again, the apartment, the second dwelling unit rather, and then this business use in the back. And I tried to give you some enhanced proofs as to site
suitability um and the reconciliation of the omission of the use um related to this as well. So in my opinion I gave you the proofs for the D1 variance for the
business use and the D1 variance for the the garage use for the for the residential use. And I would agree. Um there's a D2 variance to shrink the land area that's associated with multiple
buildings on on one lot on this lot 14 to the left. Sounds to me, Richard, like it's a temporary. It is new variance, but a variance nonetheless. I think Derek, I think that's what you were talking about in your letter. Yes, sir.
So, three D's. Does does that answer the question? Does that clarify it? Clarify. Yeah. Well, it was it was originally Karen's question. Yes. No, I understand. Thank you. Thank you for the
clarification. Okay, Mr. Shhatson, where do we go from here? That's all I have. It's up to you to decide what you're going to do with this applications. I I have one question. Sorry, Richard. Could you just expand a
little bit upon the uh performance bonds that you discussed earlier? How would that work? I'm sorry, what, Eric? I'm sorry. Uh you had mentioned performance bonds a little earlier. Could you expand on that and what how that would work? But if you want a performance plan to
demolish any building that's going to be demolished when we find out and then within you know maybe a month we'll post a performance bomb. That's all you want. You want pro you want the that's the only thing that I could think of unless you have something that guarantee that
if it's going to be demolished it's going to be demolished. We want to make sure that there's only going to be one single family dwelling on the lot 14 to be known as lot 14.01. That's what we wanted. That's what we want to do. And
it started off as Mr. Schmidt testified to as a simple uh lot line change minor subdivision to get the two lots conforming. But you brought out things that we had
to contend with and we're trying to we are trying to to uh to take care of everything. Oh uh so that uh you know it becomes almost n totally conforming
except for the fact of the uh the uh ADU on lot 13. We're just trying to do that and and make the make the lots conforming. And when you brought up the fact that uh
355 is a three unit uh dwelling when it's not permitted in the RAV zones, we we deal with it by either knocking it down
and or making it a single family dwelling. And as far as 371 is concerned, the applicant testified it to his father. He didn't, you know, he didn't know he got extensions. He got sick. He probably forgot about it. So, we're going to take care of that. And
that's also that's definitely going to be a performance bomb. So, you know, we're doing our best we can to get the things put together. So, you have two conforming lots and two two uh and a single at least one single family
dwelling on each of the lots, but the testimony of the applicant is he can't he doesn't need the large lot there. He's going to rent it out and he's going to have rental income, provide rental
space for future people in Princeton. And he's going to run the small business that he has uh from if you grant relief for the for the conversion of the second floor of
the garage uh to a,000 square feet. And as Mr. Rdonna pointed out, you're talking about a slight increase of the 800 uh to a thousand of of living. And as you pointed out, they asked to answer
Miss uh Deanna's question, there's three rooms there and that complies except that it's got to be a little bit bigger. As far as the rest of the space is concerned, as far as would you raise as a uh as a concern, he says he's going to
use it as uh a um he can use he's using it as utilities. Now, you can also put a restriction, a recorded restriction that somebody does a title search in the in
the Mercer County Clerk's Office to say that that that uh that deemed that that garage conversion can only have,000 square feet. Period. Uh you don't have to do that under a case called Aldridge versus Schwarz by Judge Conn. He says
that a person buying lot 13 if there was going to be a buy uh must go to the zoning officer and find out what the conditions or the restrictions were. That was a setback line on a shore home.
But uh and and the argument in that case was in the Aldridge case was you know not everybody can go not everybody knows that and and the argument was that it should be recorded in the Mercy County Clerk's office. So it's constructive
notice of the restriction of of the garage. So you can turn around and put all the restrictions you want uh on to to be to safeguard what what uh what could be done with that garage
conversion and you the uh I could draw a document and Miss Casey can review it and it gets recorded in the clerk's office. So it's constructive notice of all the restrictions on that garage.
That's how you solve it as well. And again, you don't even have to do that under Aldridge versus Schwarz, but that is a very dangerous uh in my opinion, even though it's an appellet division case by a by a you know, a very
intelligent judge, Judge Con from Middle County. Um but you know, not everybody's going to go to a zoning officer and check it out. And the argument also was in that case what happens if you know 20 years from now the zoning officer
doesn't have uh the the file. So you record it in the county clerk's office and that that goes on forever when you do a title search. So that's another safeguard you can uh put on for the for the house. Uh and also you can do it
also if you want for the for the business there you record it and somebody's buying it we got a search and they'll see that you know there's certain restrictions on a the business and b the garage uh
conversion. That's how you solve some and then that's how you solve some of the some of the concerns that Mr. Fridger has and rightly so on, you know, expansion of the business and expansion of the house or the apartment on top of
the uh garage. You want to comment on that, Miss Casey? Uh no, I I I understand your comment with respect to the restriction on the garage conversion in terms of how to
limit the business use. I think that would take a little bit of discussion. I'd certainly want to confer with Mr. Leco and Mr. Bridger, Mr. Weissman on that. So, um that's certainly that's certainly one way that the board could
proceed. I'm not sure tonight that we could come up with all those restrictions, but um that's certainly possible. Parent, if I might add, um, uh, the board may also want to entertain having
a restriction like that towards the second principal, uh, dwelling variance, uh, for the the, uh, garage apartment unit. We've heard a few times tonight that be that was
framed kind of as a a superersized ADU. U, but, as we've seen, it's not. it's, you know, it's being treated as a second dwelling unit and we also don't even really know the size. So, I wouldn't want to to restrict it to something like a thousand square feet and then we find
out later that that's actually not enough for what uh the applicant is looking to do. So, I think uh we should craft something uh to to allow the applicant to do what what they're looking to do and create
something that the board's comfortable with without allowing for any future, you know, whether it's 10 years or 50 years down the line of someone building a completely second house. Um because as we all know tonight, that wasn't the intention. But I think Mr. Shatzman's uh uh
his example of of putting that in the deed would make sense. We just got to figure out what exactly it is. Um and I might start with uh really restricting those uses to the existing garage building if that was something that we can I know I often make your life
difficult Karen with some of these suggestions. Um, but if that's something um that that we could begin with that might prevent any future I draw it up and I think Miss Casey from previous experience in dealing with me let's say
in Montgomery I I uh do a pretty good drawing of documents and uh you know it she will review it of course but you know I I uh I could draw a pretty good
document and and uh uh allay the fears of the board and uh and I'll take her suggestions. But you know, I I'm pretty detailed when it comes to doing documents are you Well, I think I think
Mr. Shatzman, that raises the question for the board. Um does the board want to be be able to participate in that? Is it I I appreciate your willingness to draw it up, but that would mean then that your client was looking for an approval
tonight and that we'll just call it list of restrictions is something that you would provide post approval for review by staff. So I don't know which way the board is going to go with the
application to whoever you want. I understand. So I think for the board It's uh so it's it's 10:30 now. Does the board want to um continue with their
discussion? Um do you want to carry this to another meeting date? Um how would how would you like to proceed at this point? We want to proceed. We want to keep going right now. But we also we also
have the public to hear from That's right. If there is any. How much more Mr. Shatsman? How much more testimony do you He's done. He's done. Okay. So, we could we could open it up to the public
now. That over with and then see, you know, we do have an 11:00 shutdown unless we extend it. Um, well, you have until I gave an extension to Mr. Brid Bridger to June 30th and your I think your meeting will be on
June 28th. So, you have time if you want more time. Actually, our meeting's on June 24th. Yeah, the meeting dates being changed. Okay, let's go to the public and keep keep moving. Let's see where we are. Is that all right?
Okay, let's uh All right. I hate to ask this. Do you want to say anything, Mr. Chassim before we open it up to the public. No, I just want to repeat that this is a cleanup and I think that uh Mcdana's testimony is such that uh you
know again I think it's a non continuation of a non-conforming use but he gave you reasons for you don't find it that way. It's been so long you go uh you know 73 years that means something to my mind if I were on the zoning
board. uh that's been continued on and again the 1938 ordinance provided for home occupation. The 1955 continued it with a special permit and unfortunately
it didn't uh it was repealed or not included in the later ordinances. But, you know, that's it's a cleanup and I think you got to think that there's a lot although it's not a C2 variants, the benefits outweigh any detriments. I
mean, it we're cleaning something up in accordance with your ordinance, especially getting rid of the the uh nonconformity uh of the multiple dwellings on the uh block 14. And we're just asking basically to continue on of
business in a in a lesser uh intense that was done 1853. And if you grant uh the and and a variance for the conversion of the ADU
with uh and if you have the proper conditions uh and and they're recorded, I think the municipality of Prince is protected. That's my That's my view on this case. Okay. All right. Uh we're going to open
the meeting up to the public now. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak, uh indicate that by uh pressing the uh raise hands button at the bottom of the screen. Claudia, has anybody indicated
previously or now that they'd like to speak? I have three people there. Um, there's one hand right on the top there. Okay. Well, pick somebody and let's begin. We can't see you, Mr. Oh. Oh, good
evening. Wait, who's speaking? I'm sorry. Oh, Mr. Bar. Okay, Mr. Bar, if you're comfortable, could you give us your address? Sure. My name is Christopher Bar and I live at 211 Ridge View Road. All right, sir. And do
you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? Yes. Thank you. So, I'm I'm speaking as the executive director of um Ridge View Conservancy. We're a small land trust uh that's based
on on Ridge View Road and our primary mission is to promote the conservation of vulnerable forests and wetlands in and around Princeton and we do a lot of conservation work along the Princeton Ridge. Um the discussion tonight is really focused very heavily on the
challenges related to uh the uh the uh portion of the of the two lots that's closest to Ridge View Road. And I also want to point out though that that one of the most extraordinary features of these properties is actually the
northern most uh the northern half of the lots um which thanks uh very much to the the Keller family uh remains heavily wooded uh with mature trees. It slopes northward uh down into the wetlands uh
uh of the Richview Woods. Um we could see this in Mr. Mcdana's u presentation very clearly. Um and this area, this wooded area uh on these lots is actually really important both environmentally
and historically. Um environmentally the New Jersey Conservation Blueprint has designated uh this entire area as being uh mediumigh to highest priority ecosystem to protect. Um there's a spring located
in the norththeast corner of the of the lot. Um it has very high water quality uh habitat uh for rare species. Uh it's high in terms of climate resilience and it's a priority in terms of habitat connectivity. It's part of the uh
Ridgeview woods. There's about 100 acres of contiguous uh woodlands and and wetlands that stretches uh through there. Uh the Keller property is also uh historically significant. Uh most people in Princeton don't know that Upton
Sinclair, the writer and uh labor activist, lived uh in these woods on one of the adjacent properties uh when he wrote his first novel in the early 1900s, Manasses. And then when he started working on his uh on his uh very
famous uh book, The Jungle and uh his uh uh link to the Keller property in the spring that I mentioned is documented historically. Um it's also documented that the late Woodland Indians between 600 and 800 years ago lived in uh along
along Cherry Run uh stream which is right there um adjacent to the property. And so they were surely uh on these parcels. For the last several years, Ridge View Conservancy and our conservation partners have been uh working to conserve um several
contiguous parcels uh uh that are adjacent and nearby the the Keller property. as part of Princeton's Emerald Necklace Initiative. Uh we've conserved 15 acres uh immediately uh to the west
um between the the applicant's property and the and uh the uh intersection of the Great Road and Cherry Valley Road. Um and we've conserved these to preserve the historic sites, uh to conserve the ecological functions, and to create
public walking trails. Um there's also a a uh a 10acre parcel that was donated by the Blumenthal family just to the east of of this property. And um all of this has been done with uh funding from Princeton, from Mercer County, and from
private donations. And so it's really quite extraordinary. And um in recent weeks, we've been in preliminary discussions with uh Mr. Keller about potentially purchasing a portion of that northern part of his his lot uh which
would be supplementary land for any development uh that might occur there uh so that we could put it under conservation easement. And given the tremendous public benefits uh involved, we'd like to encourage the zoning board to consider incorporating
uh this attention to the historic and and and environmental values of of the property into your review uh for the application. And if uh if uh permits are act ultimately granted uh one
possibility would be to include the creation of these conservation easements for public benefit as one of the conditions in the application. Thank you. Yeah, we we would agree to that, but there has to be um there has to be uh if you're going to per you have to
pay for mark fair market value because uh we we be glad to sit down and talk with whoever your representatives are. uh because of a case called Luniato versus Edgewater or Marlboro Township
versus Homedale Township, uh there has to be a rational nexus between what we're asking for and um what uh what what the board can impose. So, as long as you're willing to pay fair market
value, you know, as long as it's within reasonable, we'll sit down and talk with you. But I but if you're looking for a free donation uh if they grant approval it's being voided under the Nuni case or the Moral
case. Maybe just a quick response to that. Absolutely. We would pay fair market value. We Well then sure we'll talk we'll talk with you and of course if it's an easement you you when you when you value an easement on a condomination it's less than a fee. So
if you're looking for an easement, it's going to be less amount of money than if we donated it as a deed, as a fee to you. Sure. Sure. We we it's not going to be it's not going to be the you know as
if you took the property a fee simple absolute. It will be an easement which is less money than and your uh appraiser when you come up with appraisal will come will will conclude this and I agree with that the easement will be less than a fee taking
but we'll certainly sit down and talk with you. Terrific and we would be pleased to pay fair market value. Thank you. Good. Okay. Um Claudia, can you call the next person? Mr. Brading Cornwack, you want to speak?
Yes. Hi. Hello. Uh, if you're comfortable, give us your address, please. Can you hear me now? We can. Thank you. Thank you um to the chair and to the
board for um hearing me. Um, I'm not speaking for or against the application, but I do have concerns. Mr. Com, just if you are comfortable giving us your address or just to let us know what town you live in. Oh, and I need also to um I
think I need also to swear in. You do. 326 Ridge View Road. All righty, sir. And do you swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for that. Um, so I have some concerns even
though I'm not speaking for or against the application. Um, I think it's appropriate to help Jean stay in his property and I know that um, the board is eager to do that as his neighbors also are. I think it's also appropriate
for our neighbor um to sort things out at this moment when he's asking when the family is asking for reasonzoning to sort out issues that um of non-compliance that are very very longstanding. Um these relate in different ways. I've learned a lot from
the conversation from the very long conversation this evening, but I spent a long time with the documents as well. Um, I have concerns relating both to 13 and chiefly to 14, but I'll start with 13. I have no um primary concern about
um uh a,000 square ft as opposed to 800. It is worth it is worth it. It might be something for the board to consider whether intensifying non-compliance as has been raised um makes sense when what's being asked for is uh uh the
addition of a second principal residence with the ongoing business use of the property. And the only thing I would say there is um when I believe um Miss Ms. is um when one of the board members raised
the question of uh restrict of of uh whether or not a variance to allow for ongoing business use would be carried with the property. That seems to me something absolutely to avoid to formalize in any way to formalize um
business use that could carry with the property after it is sold. That would be a big mistake. um in relation to that. So I think I'm going to move to 14 which really is my biggest concern. Um I am not first of
all I want to say that when I um uh I became concerned chiefly because of one item item three I think in the letter sent from um Mr. Shatzman to neighbors notifying them of this hearing. Um the
paragraph I'm not going to read it out but I do ask the board to read it on their own time. Um that is item number three. It is concerns which buildings will stay and which will go and it is um it it does not make sense. It is extremely unclear. There is no way of
reading it where you would know what the plan was. I realize that a lot of time has been spent insisting this evening that one property will remain on 14 and that this has everything to do with why this is a good idea to clean up the property to regularize the number of
dwellings. But in fact in the written documents formally there is actually a great deal of confusion and a great deal of un lack of clarity on this precise issue and I am not reassured by the oral
testimony of Mr. Schzman and the applicant about um about about that as the ultimate as the ultimate thing that we can expect. I will quote one sentence from this evening's um proceedings. When
asked whether 369, which is the red house closest to the road, would be taken down and whether a bond could be imagined for that, the reply was not. Um, we will provide a bond when we take down 369 or 355, but if we take down
355, we will then put up a bond. That does not seem to me like a statement that that one or both of that one of those buildings is coming down. The reason that concerns me and I think I'm moving towards my end. I know that we're
running late and I think um I think I'm I think my primary objection is clear enough. Um the thing we have not talked about is in the narrative of the proposal. Um there is a statement said that we have not talked about at all the proposal to build a new
house with frontage on Ridgeview Road. Now I recognize that one way of reading our proceedings this evening would be to say well if a new house is built then both 355 and 369 as well as the
non-controversial cottage which is 371 all three would be taken down and the one would remain but that actually is not clear from the documents and I want to say although I do not um question in any way the goodwill of the kellers or
of the applicant and the and the applicant's representatives. Um, I have no confidence that should the property transfer to another owner with two properties, two dwellings
on the property that we would not be facing an application to allow a continuation of two properties on the on that on that thing on the on that property. So in fact in terms of in terms of the zoning decision I oppose not
just you know I don't know legally whether whether transfer of fee can be restricted such that someone could not build two houses on a property. One thing I do oppose absolutely is any variance allowing transfer of lot 14 or
14.01 01 as it would then be known prior to the removal of um at least two of the three dwellings. I think it that that given the given the um projection that
what is being look but that what we are to expect is one house on the lot um the property cannot transfer to a new owner a developer with two properties on two two properties on it. That seems to me a mistake and it it seems to me it would be a mistake and it seems to me it would
also set up a dangerous precedent and a false expectation on the part of the new owner of what could be done with the property. So as you as you as you consider the application and as I say I'm not opposed. I'm not speaking for or against it. I urge you to ask for
greater clarity about that and not just expressions of goodwill about um about um about our expectation that one that we would only be looking at one house on 10 on on 14. Thank you. I hope I haven't
taken too much time. Okay. Thank you. Uh Claudia, the next person. Gloria, are you muted? [Music] Gloria, Mrs. Hensley, Shantley, I don't know what.
Yes. Shanley. Shanley. Mr. Shanley, could we have your full name for the record, please? Sure. Patricia Shanley at 211 Ridge View Road. And you swear affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful. Yes.
Thank you. Sure. So, I'm going to speak on the property as well um as uh Mr. Bar did. So, I'm a forest ecologist. My focus is on forest and human health. And first I just want to say I'm really grateful to have neighbors like the Kellers. Um uh I
think Princeton's fortunate to have a family with such deep roots. I am supportive of the Keller's business continuing while he is owner and I think it makes good sense for him to live in an apartment of sufficient square feet above his garage. And I think thank goodness Mr. Keller is a plumber and can
help those of us without such capabilities address our needs here in Princeton. So, regarding the Keller's property, they've had the wisdom not to degrade the back wetlands and they've haven't removed vegetation. They've allowed it to remain wild and natural.
This is critical as their land includes a really fascinating wetland and spring with remarkable literary history. I'm just going to touch upon this briefly because while we know that Upton Sinclair uh lived there, we heard that from Mr. Bar. There was a young girl named Carrie Stout. She was 10 and she
happened to have she wrote about her interactions with him and she actually described the spring on the Keller's property and all the large boulders and the species that grew there wildflower species. This is a rare gem of an opportunity for ecological and cultural
restoration of a significant site. We don't usually have something like that. So, um, next door, Princeton High School students on the property next door have worked for four years, scores of them to uncover AfricanAmerican and indigenous
history that is next to uh, the Kellers. And when their eyes pop when they hear that they're working next to the spring that Upton Sinclair where he uh, got his water because all of them have to read the jungle as sophomores in high school.
So I think what happens with this property reflects the vision and values of Princeton. For one, are we going to support workingclass families to remain in Princeton? And also with a simple easement, we have an opportunity to intertwine human stories and natural
history to serve as a gem of an educational resource. So our hope, as Mr. Bar mentioned, is that we can work with the Keller family to place an easement on the property. We always pay fair market value and sometimes above and restore it to promote human health
and celebrate literary history. Thank you uh all of you for still being here and I thank the Kellers and the zoning board. Thank you for your comments. Okay, Claudia. Oh, next speaker please.
I got WFD. I'm not sure what the name is. Yes. Uh good evening and thank you uh for the late time still but fascinating conversation. My name is Wolf Gang Danspect Gruba and I'm the with my wife
Anag Duba. We are the immediate u neighbors to the east uh of the Keller um property and uh we are from lot 12. Um and I just we're just going to
swear you follow Mr. Stanley and say that uh we extremely happy to have the Kell sir and we're also very happy that the continuum of
can you hear okay sound is disappeared sir one second hello yes sir we need to swear hear you in you swear we can hear you. Can you hear us? Yeah. Okay. Do you do you swear
or your testimony this evening? Uh is my name and uh we live in um 325 Richview Road. Um and we are to the immediate um east of the um uh property of the
Kellas. And uh as I just said before, I'm um um we are delighted to have them as our neighbors. Uh pause one second, please, so we can swear you in. [Music]
Sir, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be true? No, now you're unmuted again. Okay. Sir, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will you hear me again? Yeah, it's fine. Thank Thank you. Okay, please
continue. So um third time uh we are the um neighbors uh to the um east uh my name is Hburg Danpuber and um we are in lot 12 um at
325 Richview Road and um I would only like to raise one concern while uh we are extremely happy to have um the Kellas as our neighbors and um I'm also
very happy that uh personally that he continues his home occupation uh as you called it um and um is in plumbing. I think it is important that one considers perhaps environmental impacts possible
environmental impacts by the storage facilities. uh any one of us who has been in plumbing and I've done this for PI knows that you deal with all kind of liquids and greases and oils
um and old plumbing material um and um petroleum and others and that might sit down um and since we are on the highest elevation of the Princeton
ridge um water has a tendency um to to follow down and since I'm working in global food and water security um and the impact of environmental and combat issues on uh uh water purity I'm
concerned about that and I know he's taking care of everything but since we talk it was beautifully mentioned by um Mr. McDonald before that uh this is basically a cleanup cleanup job of the property. I thought that should be part
of the consideration to make this possible uh to be continued uh and to be continued for the pleasure of all. Thank you and good night and sorry for the technological glitches. All right. One thing, it's uh just about
11 o' um do we do we want to board me board members, do you want to continue on? It looks like we only have one more speaker, but I'm not sure. Uh or do you want to just carry this till I believe
June 24th? No, sorry. We we were going to have to have a special date. I have a case on June 24th which I will not get an ex extension from. Okay. And it's going to be a long one, unfortunately. So, okay. Perhaps we could at least
finish the public portion. I think that's a good idea. Great idea. Okay. All right. Good. So, let's uh Claudia, can you call the next person, please? There. I don't know what your name is. Brunstein.
Yes. Hi, I'm using my wife's computer. My name is Peter Brunstein and we live at 50 Baldwin Lane. Baldwin Lane runs perpendicular, I guess, parallel to the side of of the Keller's property. And Mr. Mr.
Bronstein, um, uh, do you swear affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? Yes, I do. Thank you. So, um, we have a private road. There are four houses on it and um we border the I
guess it's 14 that the Kellers have. Um I spoke with Jean um about a month ago about his plans and based on my conversation with him. I was a little surprised at the tone of the conversation this evening because I
thought we were going to be discussing the possibility that Gan mentioned to me, which was that he was seeking potentially to split lot 14 into two lots in addition to um moving some of
lot 14 into lot 13 to make lot 13 large enough to be a standalone lot. He had mentioned to me though that um they're considering splitting the remainder of 14 into two properties, but in order to
do that, they would need permission to tie into Baldwin Lane, which is a private road. And I'm quite concerned about that. and having lived here for 30 years, I don't think there'd be much um the view here would not be very
favorable to um giving access to the neighboring property on on our private road. So, I thought that was going to be the subject of this evening's discussion, at least to some extent. Um, but I think instead the confusion
that we have over whether they're planning to remove the little red house or the brown house in back um just reflects the uncertainty over what exactly they're planning to do with the
property. And I would emphasize what Braden said earlier, which is that in order to properly review what u the Kellers are asking for here, I think we need to know what their plans are and the plans are very ambiguous at best as
to what's going to happen with the properties that are on lot 14 now. So, I would say that I think it would be only appropriate for the Kellers to come back and tell us what the plan is for that
lot going forward so that we're all in a better position to understand what the impact of this is going to be on the neighborhood. Well, I mean, do you have anything else to add right now, Mr. Bronstein? No, that that's that's all I have to say. Thank you. Yeah. All
right. I'm sure the tellers have heard you. So, okay. Claudia, is there anyone else that like would like to speak? [Music] There are no more hands. Okay. Okay. Since no one else wants to speak, we'll
close the public portion of the hearing. All right. Do we want to continue on or do we want to stop for the evening? Stop for the evening. Okay. Um I agree for the evening. Um I agree. One of the
reasons has always been to let staff go home at a reasonable I'm very that's I agree. Very well said, Michael. Yes. Um what what would be the date we would
carry this to? Derek, thank you. Um, unfortunately we we'd have to have a special meeting. We could uh and I don't know if other staff is available, but uh for consideration June 11th or 18th, those are Wednesdays. I can
do I think I can do e I can do either of those. I would prefer the 11th. But what board members, what are your schedules? Do both of those dates work? Do one of them work? [Music]
It' be okay. Neither. Neither works for me. Neither works. Okay. Um, other board members, Stephen, you're muted. Okay. What was it? The 11th and what was the
other day? The 18th. 18th. Okay. I'm looking. I'm available on both, Chris. Yeah, I'm available both. Okay. So am I. Okay. I'm available on the 18th.
Okay. I think Marlin. Yeah, both are good. Both are good. Okay. Um, I'm kind of iffy for the 18th, but available on the 11th or whichever date you choose. The other
option, I'll throw it out there, is June 9th or June I mean, excuse me, July 9th or July 11th. July 9th. I'm good. I'm good for both of those. July 11th. That's a Friday. Excuse me. It's a Friday. Well, that's
not good. And I'm afraid I can't Well, wait a minute. It would be an evening meeting. Uh, it's going to be difficult for me, but um, would the 16th work? July 16. Yeah,
that works for me. That works for me as well. Oh, yes. Yeah, it it should work for me. Yeah. 16th works for me. 16th also works for me. Yeah, it looks okay.
I can do July 16th. Okay, Michael, does that work for you? Yes, Mr. Dokin. Does that work? I'm not sure. Okay. Well, if we have enough members, so it's up to Mr. Dawan if he can be there or not. But everybody else seems
to be acceptable to it. July 16th. Hold on. Let me just see. So, how many members we would have? We have seven. We would have six if Mr. Dokin can't make it. Okay. And the applicant is going to need five
votes at least. Yes. At least five affirmative votes. So, Mr. Shman say he called earlier today and we if we don't have seven members, he does not want to go on. Okay. Well, we do have two other members of the
board that aren't here tonight. That's true. They'd have to listen to tonight's tape vote to participate, which I'm sure they'd be willing to do if if they can make this special meeting.
Well, we don't have we don't have No, I know. We don't have a date yet. So, no, we don't have either of them here. So, we really can't if Well, wait a minute, Derek. What about July 23rd? That's a regular meeting. I we have another case that times out August 5th a
major site plan that we'd have to hear that night unfortunately or I would have offered that up but that's a good suggestion. Okay, got it. Well, Mr. Shatzman, what do you think about the 16th? We have two members here that two members that are not here
tonight that may be at the meeting. Oh, you're muted. You're muted. You're muted, Rich. You're muted. All right, Max. All right, now you're okay, Richard. I need I need I'll give you
extension when you have seven people here. If the two people were not here, if they say that they listen to the tape, I'll go along with it. But, uh, I have to have seven members. I'll give you whatever you want. Richard,
um, you want to just carry to the 16th right now with six members. I will contact the two board members to see if they are amendable to listening to the tape and can make Yeah, we can do that. If not, then it'll be cancelled. You'll have to notice again. We'll have to look
at an extension and pull board for date. No, if if it happens on the 16th and I appear on the 16th, uh you could carry it from the 16th to Yeah. Okay. Good point. Thank you, sir.
Let's do that. In other words, you So, for the benefit in Hillsboro for a big job, we carried it to the Oh, you got you're perfect. You got it. You got it. All right. So for the for the benefit of those members of the public who came
tonight to speak uh it's being carried then to July 16th. There will not be any additional noticing um because you're hearing about it tonight and I assume we would have the normal meeting time of 7:30 Derek. Yes
ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Okay. But the extension Thank you very much for your time. Richard, do we need an extension? Claudia, thank you. Yeah, an oral extension. Send me it. Send me
the email tomorrow. I'll sign it. I'll give you oral extension now. I don't go for the business about, you know, you didn't act within the time. I'm giving you an oral extension. It's on the record. Claudia sends me an email. I'll sign it tomorrow. I'll send
it right back to you. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Sign it. Why don't you sign it till uh what do you why don't you make it beyond this the the July? Make it like the September in order to give you give you a lot of time. All right. Just thank you
to carry it. All right. Yes, sir. Okay. So, we special meeting is July 16th. Okay, sir. Okay. Any other discussion this evening? You have two special meetings. The 24th and the 16th. July 16th and then July
23rd. Well, the 24th is a replacement to the 25th. But it's a special meeting. Yeah. Oh, wait. We have just so I get this straight. We have our meeting We have a a meeting on Jul on June 24th. Yes. Then
we have a meeting on July 23rd. Right. That's a normal meeting, right? And then we'll have a meeting on July 16th. That's correct. Correct. Okay.
Okay. All right. Right. Okay. If that's it for the evening, any other thing we want to discuss before we adjourn? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much and we'll see you next month. See you. Good night. Good night. Thanks
everybody. Thank you. Good night. Good night.