Good evening and welcome. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Planning Board on Thursday, May 7th, 2026. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the
resolution of regularly scheduled meetings of this planning board for February 2026 through January 2027. A copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 14, 2026. Legal notice on the adoption of said
resolution was published in the January 16, 2026 edition of the Princeton packet. Notice that this meeting also has been posted to the municipal website, princetonj.gov/calendar. Notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton Planning Board
will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday, January 14, 2026. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. During hearings on applications for
development, members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. Public comment is heard by the board after an applicant's representatives have finished their presentations and have been questioned by planning board members and staff. >> Those wishing to comment orally should
virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star9. Oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised. We ask with
respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less. A countdown clock on your screen will help speakers keep track of time. Please note that speakers who exceed 3 minutes will be interrupted. Inappropriate public comment containing
obscinity, hate speech, or relating to matters not before the board will be muted. Miss Battle, could you call the role, please? >> Certainly. Mr. Bingham, >> here. Councilman Cohen >> here.
>> Mayor Freda, Mr. McGawan >> here, >> Miss Na Mr. O'Donnell >> here, >> Miss Pearlmutter >> here, >> Miss Swimmer,
>> Mr. Taylor. >> I know Taylor is here, but you're mute. Mr. Taylor, you're muted. >> Is Jack maybe muted through the webinar through Zoom rather than on his own computer?
>> There we go. >> There we go. Am I Am I on now? >> Yes, you are. >> Yes. >> There we are. What? Something something's wrong with the screen, Justin. But nonetheless, I can hear. >> Yeah, I'm noticing I see you in two
places. One with my name, one with yours. >> Ah, yeah. >> Anyway, you're here. So, we're gonna we're gonna continue the roll call and figure out your >> doppelganger situation
>> situation. Uh >> oh. >> Jack, would it be possible to log out and log back in perhaps? >> Yeah. Again, what what again?
>> Yeah, we're we're getting some feedback from the two that are are on. So, if you could log out and try logging back in, that might solve problem. >> Am I properly backed in? >> We hear you now. Can you see us? >> Yes. No. Yeah, you just came up.
>> Great. >> Problem solved. It would appear so. >> Here we go. >> Okay. Deedra, can you continue with the roll call, please? >> Of course. Miss Wilson Anderson
>> here. >> Chair Wilson >> here. You have a >> I'll just Yeah. Linda Schwimmer arrived after you called. >> That's correct. Y Thank you. Um okay.
Um announcements. I just have a couple. First of all, um our next meeting is May 28th, I think, to avoid a holiday. So that's an unusual 3-week gap uh rather than um two weeks.
And um I just want to note too that tonight um we will take a break at 9 or 9:15 and then we'll have a hard stop at 11:00 p.m. Um so we have a lot on the agenda and hopefully we'll um well we'll
certainly try to get through things but we're not going to go past 11. Um, and then finally, I just wanted to note, um, feels like he sort of snuck out the door, but I I know that wasn't really the case. Derek Bridger, our
longtime zoning officer, has retired. And um, I just want to say he was just an exceptional zoning officer and um, and a thoroughly
good human being. I think he was um as humble as he is, brilliant at his job. And um I'm sure that um our new zoning officer, Miss Gribbon, has been told a thousand times that she
has big shoes to fill. And I don't mean to psych you out or anything like that. Welcome aboard. I mean, I know you've been around for for a while now, but it's great to have you as our new zoning officer. just didn't want to um to not
comment on Derek's um departure because he was really um really just as I said an exceptionally good zoning officer. So, >> thank you.
>> Fair wins and all to to Derek. Hope he has a wonderful retirement and does not get calls night and day from who knows who >> with questions about zoning. I mean
um Justin or others are there additional um announcements? Nope. Okay. um subcommittee reports. I understand we
don't have any of those. I think we're in the process of of scheduling a landscape committee um meeting, but that has not been set yet. So um we'll report on that after it is set. Um
now we have two sets of minutes. The first from March 5th, 2026. Any edits, suggestions? And if not, would someone like to move those minutes? >> I'll move them. >> Thanks, Councilman Cohen. Is there a
second? >> Second. >> Thanks, Mr. Taylor. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Okay. Next, we have minutes from April 9th, 2026.
Comments, edits, motion. move the minutes. >> Thank you, Owen. And second. >> I I wasn't >> I saw Freddy Pearl Mutter Pearl Mutter's um hand go up, so I'm taking that as a
second. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Um, next up we have a an application for an extension of time. This is from
Steven Wasco, a minor subdivision. Um, uh, the approval and approval was granted December 19th of 2024. The first extension was approved July
17th of last year, 2025. This is at 561 and 537 Stockton Street, file number P2323-368M. Jerry, can you speak to notice and jurisdiction? >> Yeah, let me ask Justin. Uh Justin, um
what did we do? Did we decide they didn't have to notice for these extensions? I thought that we didn't they did not have to, but we might have required anyway. >> I believe the applicant did notice on these. >> Okay. >> Yes. So, so they did notice um as they did the the last time. So, they did
notice the uh the first extension request in July of last year. Uh and uh to be to make sure everything is uh clear uh clearcut. They renoticed for this one. Uh we have those in our um in
our file uh and everything was uh as it should be. >> Good. Okay. Great. >> Okay. Great. Thanks, Mr. Foot. Um, so the memo about this came from Nathan
and Justin. Which of you would like to take the lead? I think >> that that would be me, Madam Chair. >> Okay, great. >> Yep. Thank you. Uh, so I I just do want to take a moment to reorient the board members to the the history of the application. Uh, and as you noted, uh,
there is a memo dated May 1st, 2026. Uh, and so really all I'm doing is summarizing uh that memo. Um, so at a meeting on October 17th, 2024, the board heard and approved a minor subdivision application uh to adjust the lot line
between uh Mr. Bryant's property at 537 Stockton Street and Mr. Wascow's property at 561 Stockton Street. And I want to do now is just very quickly see See that should be sharing the screen uh
the uh the map uh the overhead map of the site. Uh and I just very quickly want to uh just point out um that the entire idea of this application was again it's a lot line adjustment. They are
taking away this line here between the two properties, creating almost a well what would be a flagshaped lot. Uh providing uh access to the brook uh for 537 Stockton Street. Uh and then ex uh pushing
providing a little bit more uh space for Mr. Wascow's property at 561 Stockton. And a large port reason for that is so that he could move his uh house uh a house that was built in the 18th century uh away from the flood plane. Uh the the
board saw images from the IDA floods in 2021 during the first hearing. Uh and so the idea is to be able to move that house away from the flood plane and up to this uh higher uh elevation area to the east uh to the northeast of that uh
location. Um >> and and why why don't we mark why don't we treat this as a was formal hearing. So we'll mark this as as exhibit PB1. And if you could identify it um >> yes sorry I had that in my uh notes and then I forgot to uh uh to say it. Um but
yes this is the uh an overhead image uh it's a map from uh new NJ parcel explorer website uh which was created by Rowan University. >> Thank you. And it's an overhead image of uh the two the two properties in question,
>> right? With with lot lines delineated for the the lots in the area. >> Correct. Uh so now moving on. So uh I've stopped sharing. Uh and moving on, planning board approved the findings of fact for
the project on December 19th, 2024. Uh per the uh municipal land use law, an applicant has 190 days to record the subdivision with the county before the approval expires. Uh therefore, the original deadline to file the subdivision was June 19th, 2025. The
applicant requested an extension on May 30th of last year. The board granted that request at its meeting on July 17th of 2025, and the resolution for that was adopted September 4th uh of last year. The resolution concluded that the board
quote voted to extend the filing period to be determined by the board upon further application once NJ DOT approves the subdivision plan and the dedication. The length of the extension will be the time period occasioned by the NJ DOT uh delay. And just for clarification for
everyone, NJ DOT is the New Jersey Department of Transportation. I'm sure everybody knows that just for clarification purposes. Um, sorry. >> And the main reason for their involvement was there was rightway that was being dedicated to uh to uh >> um Jerry I didn't understand what you said.
>> Uh the the main reason for the involvement uh of DOT was there was dedicated right away being dedicated >> right okay >> from 206 20 >> 20 right it's uh it's um highway 206 which is under NJ do uh jurisdiction.
Um so our comments we just had a few that are really relevant. Uh first the applicant should provide testimony and or documentation as to the date that application was made to the NJ dot for approval. Um they did receive approval. We have that approval um letter and
permit uh in the file for this application. Uh so they do they do have the final approval from uh DOT. Um next uh the board surveying consultant Mr. Gregory Sanduski must review and approve meets and bounds descriptions. The most recent review letter that we have from
him, it was dated July 14th, 2025. Uh, and that indicated several issues that had to be clarified or addressed with the subdivision plan as well as the meets and bounds descriptions uh before that approval could be uh granted. So, revised drafts have been provided by the applicants professionals. Uh, but uh we
still have to have that uh that final approval from uh from Mr. Sanduski. Um there there was not a specific amount of time for the extension requested. Um but given the remaining items to be handled, uh the resolution for this finalization
uh has to be uh adopted at the next uh hearing on May 28th. Uh and that uh approval from Mr. Sanduski. Uh my recommendation, our recommendation was that the extension be made to the first week of June uh up to Friday, June 5th.
Um not sure how exactly that gets um uh put into the resolution, whether it has to be a number of days or um or what have you, but uh our recommendation would be through um you know, up to Friday, June 5th as the a possible uh
extension uh date. Uh and finally, um again, it's been extended once uh already. This is uh what kind of amounts to a finalization uh of that extension request. Um but if the board does not approve the request for extension, the applicant would be able to return to the
board uh with the same subdivision application. What that just to clarify what that means uh he would have to return and receive uh approval for the subdivision uh not just and the variances uh for that matter uh and not just an extension request. Um and so
with that uh that's all I have uh for this one. Obviously if anybody has any questions I can answer them. Uh, and I believe that the applicant and uh uh his attorney is here uh for um to answer questions as well. >> Okay. Um David Cohen.
>> Yeah, I just feel like I need a little bit more explanation of that June date. I mean, my understanding is that the uh the resolution that approved the extension originally said that the
extension should be predicated on the delay that was caused by the outside agency and the outside agency caused a delay of >> you know a year or more >> 18 months. So the question is why are we
only giving the applicant a week from when we pass this resolution to get their application in? >> That is our Yeah. So that's our our recommendation just based on um what still needs to be handled. Obviously, it's the board's discretion
uh to uh how how much of a time uh delay to or how much of a uh extension should be uh provided. Um obviously it is tied to the NJ DOT approval. Um they again they've received that. So but ultimately
it is the board's discretion uh as far as how much additional time beyond that what what our recommendation was uh uh to provide to the applicant. I guess we'll hear from the applicant of what they would like to receive, but it seems like um given the language in the
statute, we could justify much longer extension if if desired. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. it. Sorry, I was just going to say that um one thing that we we did discuss internally was uh that one of the
reasons that we asked for the clarification on the qu the when this was uh submitted to NJ DOT uh is basically that kind of sets the the uh the clock for when
the approval was delayed uh essentially. Um so one if if that question can be answered we can also get more clarity on how much of a delay should be or how much of an ext additional extension a final extension date uh can be provided
>> right okay >> and >> uh I'm sorry >> yeah and that that letter from Mr. Zanduski, I believe, um was his name is uh the one thing that we're waiting on. >> Uh yes.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Jerry, were you gonna >> Yeah, >> say something. >> Right. It was unclear to me um about you said there was the May 28th date that Nathan we want them to do something by to file another application.
>> No, no, that's that. So, in order to finalize the uh extension, we would need a resolution. Um, and so that's the that is the date of the next uh board meeting. Uh, and so that's when that uh resolution could conceivably be uh adopted.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, and I guess the tricky thing then is we can we can we tie a date um for their for them to get their perfection of their subdivision which is by filing a platter
or filing deeds. Um, tie that into um approval of the um final meets and bounds by by Mr. Sanduski. >> Yep. >> Right. So, so >> yeah, just one thing, Nathan.
>> Yeah. Um I mean that's why I was thinking that um at least June 5th, but as U Councilman Cohen uh indicated um there there might be more leeway uh in that regard. Um >> because my my
>> Mr. PCEL h has something to to add. >> Yeah. And just just if I could finish my thought, my thought would be >> to say they they must they must perfect by the date that Mr. Sanduski approves the meets and bounds plus a number of days basically either to prepare the
deeds or to prepare the plot. And that's pretty straightforward, but maybe there's better alternatives. >> Jim, >> yeah. Should should I be sworn in or >> Yeah, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give will be the truth?
>> I do. Um the the pending um part of the process that is has not been completed is compliance. And compliance would be just Greg Sanduski finally signing off on the meets and bounds. Compliance normally does not
have anything to do with recording of the subdivision. Once they get compliance, then they can go record the subdivision. So, this is only about compliance. But I think it would be uh appropriate to say that um that they
need to I I I'm I I don't agree with Nathan. I'm sorry, Nathan. One week is not enough time. We need to know what Greg Sanduski's schedule is. For for all we know, he's cruising on the Amazon. Um, so, uh, I I I hadn't realized, um,
until just now that there was that issue. Um, I have just emailed him and may know before the end of the evening um, what his what his ability to turn around a res a resubmission would be, but I would suggest that we give them 30
to 60 30 or 60 days to in addition, not not seven, not a week. Well, that's 30 to 60 days after the uh resolution. >> Yeah. >> The adoption. >> Yeah. >> No, after after the >> perfection after the
>> No, I'm the extension an extension of >> longer than that. But again, um I think we should hear from the applicant and ask and see what they would like what they think it would take. Jim, before we do that, just and and my thought of not
picking dates, which is be problematic here because we're not sure to say when the when the meets and bounds are approved by Mrs. Sanduski, they have x number of additional days and that could be a short period of time. >> Well, isn't that already isn't that
already written into MLU? On once we approve and sign off on the subdivision, they have a certain amount of time already under MLUL to file the subdivision. But what's a little tricky here, maybe not completely clear, is um we've approved the subdivision, but now
we have this slight wrinkle with we have a meets and bounds description that hasn't been approved yet. So, I would tie it into the meets and bounds, but um let's see. >> You've approved the subdivision subject to the condition that the meets and bounds be corrected.
>> That's correct. >> So, that's a that's that's the compliance issue. As soon as they have compliance, we sign off on it and then they have a certain amount of time to file the subdivision or it is moved under MLUL. >> You guys are agreeing with each other.
>> Yeah, we are. I'm >> pretty sure. >> But I don't I don't think that we should be giving them an extension of the approval to to to a point where it's filing. But I Chris Chris Tar is their attorney. I'm
sure that that we can work this out. I it's I just uh I I just am trying to say that the only thing left is the final review of the bounds to reach compliance on this. >> I'm sorry, Jim. >> Mr. Tar,
>> surely. Thank you. Uh first of all, uh Mr. Foot asked a couple of questions. When did we apply to the DOT? And that the answer is after we got the municipal approval and the county approval, we began informal meetings with DOT, which
is what they require. And only on April 9 of 2025 did they permit us to file the application and it was down there for 13 months. Uh so that's the answer to Mr. Foot's question, but I had the same thought that others did. The statute
says that the it must be recorded. So, we're talking about the recording date and not only could Mr. Sanduski be away or kick it back and forth a couple times as has happened. Then Miss Wilson has to sign and the secretary has to stamp their names on the subdivision D
before we can we have to pick it up, get it down to Trenton, make sure it's in good form. So, all we're asking for is say 45 days from the day that Miss Wilson signs the deed and it's available for us
to pick up. 30 days the the but the all of the action steps are in the municipalities hands not the applicants. >> Yep. >> Chris I mean I I I take it you could do it in quite a bit less than 30 days. >> I I could but you know what if it gets
bounced back because there's it's a dollar short on the filing fee. I mean do you really want us to come back? I mean this >> No, I don't think anybody wants that. >> Please just give us a few days. Nobody wants this. Nobody wants this more than Mr. Watskco who is here. I think he'll
tell you he's been waiting a long time. >> I've been waiting a very long time and and my neighbor who's been unbelievably cooperative for 4 and a half years in this process. He's retiring this week from Rutgers University and moving back
to England. He has his house under contract contingent on me getting these deeds filed so that he can move on with his life. And I just I understand the statutory stuff that you're going through, but I just hope the planning
board can see when Mr. Sanduski or takes a look at this and gets come we can exchange deeds and I can transact my business with with Mr. Bryant so he can move on with his life. And that's that's what I'm trying hoping to get accomplished.
>> And the idea with the 30 days is you're actually going to try and do it as soon as you can of course. Um but if you need, you know, if there there's some another wrinkle um pops up, you want to have a little cushion to deal with it. >> They pop up. >> Yeah.
>> Um so the first the first number of days you threw out was 45. I'm completely comfortable with that. If you think 30 is better for some reason, um I'm totally comfortable with that as well. I think it's I think it's important for us to impress upon Mr. Sanduski, which I
think Mr. Purcell is on that and maybe others as well. >> Right. So, but again, in your practice, in your the board's practice, Madam Chair, is for you to sign the deed when it's done. >> And I'd like to measure from that point
because Mr. Purcell could be on vacation, others could be on vacation. It's just >> Okay. >> I can't get that deed recorded until I have your signature on it. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, this is going to be done uh Chris by by filing a deeds, not not the
pot. >> I'm I can't speak to that either. >> Okay. Either way either way. >> Either way, she's got to sign it. >> Sure. Sure. >> The deed. There's a deed. So, I think we're doing it by deed. >> Okay. >> So, um Mr. Mueller, can you frame a
motion for someone to >> Yes. Um, it's basically to grant a further extension um that will end uh within 45 days of the date that Mr. Sanduski approves the meets and ends
>> or 45 days from the day that the chair the planning board chair signs off on >> Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Right. Right. >> Yep.
>> I'm ready to move that. I'll second it. >> We lost Louise. >> Take over. Take over. Owen. >> All right. >> We got the momentum. Don't Don't Motion has been moved by Nat Bodingimer and seconded by David Cohen. Uh, does this
call for a roll call? Oh, Louise is back. >> Sorry about that. Um h you know my little it looks like I have a strong signal but obviously
um I didn't. So um it's been >> Can you repeat the the has somebody moved made a motion based on >> move and David Cohen has has seconded. >> Okay. Deedra would you call the role
please? Certainly, Mr. Bodinghammer. >> Yes. >> Councilman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Mr. McGawan. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Miss Pearl Mater. >> Yes. >> Miss Swimmer?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Taylor? >> Yes. >> Miss Wilson Anderson? >> Yes. >> Chair Wilson? >> Yes. >> Motion carrot. >> Thank you very much.
Thank you and um good luck. >> Steve has his hand up. >> Yeah. One qu Sorry, Mr. Wasco. Go ahead. >> Just ask if I can get update from from Mr. Purcell when he hears from Mr. Sanduski. I have of all the vendors in
the world, I actually have a house mover who's honoring a price from four and a half years ago. In the world of things getting expensive, they want to move my house this August. and and every as everyone knows the world's gotten incredibly expensive and I don't want to miss this opportunity. So,
>> Steve, I will keep you informed. If you recall, I was there right after Ida was >> No, you weren't. >> And and I I can't imagine how painful this has been. >> Absolutely. With people retiring all around, when Derek's first words to me when I
first went out of his office was, "We might be able to do a simple lot line adjustment here. It was supposed to be simple, sir. >> Yeah, exactly. I appreciate everybody's help. Thank you. >> We appreciate you. Thank you.
>> Um, next up, we have an ordinance referral for master plan consistency. This is ordinance 2026-18, an ordinance of the municipality of Princeton pertaining to allowable business uses throughout the municipality and amending various
provisions of the code of the bureau of Princeton, New Jersey 1974 and the code of the Township of Princeton, New Jersey 1968 accordingly. Um, Mr. Foot. >> Yep.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, so as been noted, the Princeton Council has referred ordinance number 2026-18 to the board for master plan consistency review. The ordinance was introduced on April 27th and is scheduled for a public hearing on May 11th, next Monday. The
purpose of the changes proposed by the ordinance is to clarify and expand the permitted uses in the business or commercial districts of Princeton. No zones are being created or removed and there are no reszonings uh proposed. Uh so I'm going to summarize the contents of the ordinance based on uh my
memo to the board dated May 4th. Uh so first of all in the RO residents office NB neighborhood business and CV central business districts of the former bureau. The ordinance adds the crafting or arrangement of materials resulting in a finished product or commodity such as
apparel, home decoration, jewelry, toys, flowers, artwork or similar products with floor area and story level limitations depending on depending on the zone to the list of permitted uses. Uh and uh any such activity associated
with those uses or this use uh must be contained within the building. Next, the ordinance also clarifies that certain uses, specifically spas, tutoring, test prep, and fitness instruction are in the list of are in the list of permitted uses with floor area limitations in some
of the zones uh in the following districts. And what I'll also note is that I listed those uh the spas, tutoring, test prep, fitness, instruction, but it's not those clarifying that those uses are permitted in all of the districts. If you look at the memo, it does break down what which
of those are being clarified uh in each of those uh zones. Uh but the zones in question for that that particular uh clarification are the RB residence business, the NB, the CB, the SB service business and the MRO
mixed residential retail office districts of the former bureau as well as the B1 business, B2 business, SC shopping center, S1 service, S2 service, and RO retail office districts of the former township. Additionally, the ordinance will allow
for medical and dental offices subject to certain limitations in the CB and SB districts of the former bureau. Next, the ordinance will add offices for research, engineering, or development in science and technology, again subject to floor area
limitations in the CB and SB districts of the former bureau. Uh the ordinance additionally will allow museum quote museums and similar cultural uses as a permitted use along with theaters in the CB district of the former bureau. Next, the ordinance will permit offices on the
first story of up to one-third of the floor space in the SB district of the former bureau. And finally, the ordinance will add quote barber shops, beauty parlors, tailor, dress makers, and millinary shops, photographic studios, shoe repair, shoe shine, and
hat cleaning shops. Uh, spas and similar uses that do not require a medical or professional license, tutoring, test prep, and similar uses, and studios for dancing, music, and fitness instruction to the permitted uses. And clarify that residential and non-residential uses must have separate independent
entrances. Uh and that's all that that particular change is going to be for the PO professional office residence districts of the former township. Uh and then based on my review and my professional opinion, the ordinance is
consistent with the master plan. Uh first the vision statement of the master plan includes that Princeton will be e quote economically strong and adaptable and quote a land use goal of the plan is to quote provide greater opportunities for economic development by expanding permitted uses within the downtown
commercial and mixeduse districts um uh that reflect the future direction of the market. Apologies. Additionally, one of the economic development goals uh is to quote strengthen Princeton's commercial and mixeduse districts and maintain the municipality's position as
a prestigious regional retail and dining destination. The proposed amendments uh clarify and add to the list of permitted uses in the commercial districts of the municipality, thereby ensuring more opportunities for economic development and strengthening the districts. And
finally, another economic development goal is quote identify and develop new growth opportunities that will diversify Princeton's employment profile and insulate the municipality against the adverse effects of changing retail and office environments in quote uh the inclusion of research and development
office uses uh in certain commercial districts assists in this goal and in fact the uh permitting the uh array of office uses that uh I've described and that are listed in the ordinance uh also uh assist in that goal. Um, the board shall determine if they find the
ordinance uh if they find the ordinance substantially consistent with the master plan and provide any comments to the council. Uh, thank you. And Madam Chair, I'll turn it back over to you. >> Okay. Um,
questions from board members. That was a lot. I I understand this arose um maybe not it in its um specifics but um but then again maybe so um after a study
uh undertaken by a consultant to experience Princeton. It is um something that they've been interested in for for some time. Um Jack Taylor. >> Yeah. My general impression I think
not I think it clearly is that this is consistent with the master plan on the one hand on the other what I'm wondering can you can you explain to what extent actual market practice or actual market needs have given rise to the amendments
proposed versus what appears to be best practice in communities across the states. Okay. Um, so I can't speak as far as what studies were undertaken specifically for this
particular uh set of amendments. Um, what we um what what I know at least uh and uh I'll I'll tag in Justin uh Mr. uh Mr. Leco um for additional background if that's
what's uh being asked for. Uh but this was undertaken uh with the I'll say assistance of experience Princeton. Um they uh and as far as what studies what practices uh were looked at for this um
that's that was something that they brought to us. Uh we did review it internally uh with uh staff. Staff did review it. the code review committee also uh reviewed it uh the code review committee of council uh reviewed it um
and uh determined the best way to uh to uh proceed. >> If I could just jump in. Um it's a really good question, Jack. Um when I first started here in 2020, I remember doing some research on allowable uses and particularly experiential uses um
for before the uh special improvement district was even around. I think it was for um the economic development committee that council had appointed. Um so this this idea has been uh out for a while. Um and it's based on feedback
from the business owners of who they're hearing from basically and who's choosing to go to Somerville or Redbank or Montlair uh instead of coming here, you know, with the uses being one of those reasons. Um that being said uh we
are doing the full code rewrite and um there were some uh uh requests at the beginning to kind of have a real paradigm shift in the way that we process uh business uses and and uh define business uses and things like that. we decided not to go that way with
the code rewrite coming up and with uh the amount of discussion we're going to have with members of the public um members of the business community, people who go to stores, things like that. Um so this is where we ended on as somewhat uh I don't want to say temporary relief um but uh some things
that the business owners are saying could really help them now or the property owners and the business owners um could really help them now. Justin, do do we have any methodology, any practice within the community to
monitor what we've just proposed? Obviously, we're interested in growth, and I would have preferred if we had a a natural process, an evolving process of needs that gave rise to the solutions
proposed. But I appreciate that it wasn't possible. Your comments are fair enough. That's a justification for what's been proposed to be sure. How are we going to implement it is what this is all about because the growth and
development of Princeton is the methodology, the philosophy of the master plan and all of us who live here. I think >> yeah, I think the market is going to implement it. we're taking off um uh you know gates that are are regulating
things that um the market currently wants I think is what we're hearing here. Um experienced Princeton particularly under their new leadership I think will be the ones to monitor and assess uh if this is working if our overall um business zoning is is working
for their needs uh for the town's needs too in 2026. Um but uh right now it's really about taking away some of those regulations or even just um like Nathan said, clarifying some things. Uh we just got an application earlier this week um for a gym, you know, pretty simple, a
small gym. Uh we had to figure out where to put that. Um and much in the same that uh we did at the last place I worked, we put that under a uh dance studio um because we don't have gyms right now or fitness instruction. So, a lot of zoning is trying to fit things in
the um the closest category of when the uses were created. In the case of our burough and and township, I think that's 68 and 74. So, you can imagine the the changing uses since then. Um so that's really um uh the way in which we're we
as a municipality are not necessarily uh uh the marketers or or drawing businesses in, but we're trying to get rid of the things that prevent them from coming in. >> Baking down barriers. I It's a good way to look at it.
Councilman Cohen. Yeah, I just wanted to add a word. >> Did you have your hand up? >> Can you hear me? I'm speaking. I am unmuted. >> I can hear you.
>> Okay. I uh I'm asking mostly for Louise because she's breaking up a little bit and I thought maybe she couldn't hear me. >> I can hear you. Anyway, um you know, I wanted to to Jack's question point out
that there was sort of a two-part uh intention here. One was to allow uses which weren't currently allowed which are a result of changing forces in the market. So for instance, these
experiential uses that Justin referred to, these are things that are doing well in uh an internet retail environment. Things that like going and making pottery or learning how to do leather
work at a uh an establishment that may then also sell those items. That's something you can't get online. And so these are some of the business models that we're hearing from the business community. There's a lot of interest in
implementing those. So that was one piece of it. In another piece, it was really more clarifying things that um we were allowing under our current code, but that the experienced Princeton community wanted
to have in writing in the code that it was allowed rather than just a zoting officer's interpretation that it was allowed under the existing because that's seen as a barrier to entry for small businesses. if they actually have
to feel like they have to hire a lawyer and they have to come and meet with staff to figure out whether what they want to do is even permitted, it's raising the bar, you know, to entry. And so part of what this is intended to do
is really just clarify stuff that was already being permitted, but to make the information that it was permitted more accessible to uh small startup businesses. So those were the two categories I would say that these changes fall into.
>> That that's really helpful. David, just one more question observation. Is there someone within the governance process of the municipality who's responsible for developing business, monitoring how
things are going and keeping us informed with respect to what we put in place and how well and effective is is it working? That would be normal in many communities. Is it part of our governance in Princeton? I think that's
a basic question. >> I do not believe we have a staff member. We have two members of the governing body who are on the board of experience Princeton and I think they kind of serve that role, but it's not a bad idea. I
know other towns like Somerville have benefited greatly from having that. But right now, actually, let me correct that. Experienced Princeton has an executive director who does exactly that, but she's not a staff. She's not an employee of the municipality. She's
an employee of the special improvement district. >> Sounds like a position the planning department would love to have. >> Put a pin in that, >> Miss Wilson Anderson. >> Thank you. Um, I I think the update does
align with the concept of the master plan and growth in Princeton, retail growth and vibrancy of the the retail center. But I I guess I I just want to confirm that there are no changes right now in zoning and there are no changes
in the impact that some of these businesses that maybe before this haven't been allowed uh in certain areas. Uh, and one particular example I'm thinking of is a the like smallcale coffee roastery which was an issue and I
know there were some some concerns about the impact of that kind of a business and I assume that would fall generally under I I guess it's the crafting or arrangement of materials part of the of the ordinance. Uh but we still have the
impact questions about how that impacts uh the businesses and the residential uses in the area. Is that correct? >> Like >> yeah. >> Oh, sorry Justin, if you wanted to >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm happy to jump in. Um I don't think these changes would
actually affect that one specific case. Um that was ultimately a zoning officer decision uh where the roasting was uh considered manufacturing and that wasn't allowed. Um in this case uh specifically the small scale manufacturing I really
liken it to kind of like an Etsy store um or some of the experiential examples that Councilman Cohen mentioned before. Um so I think that's slightly different than the coffee roasting. Um that being said, nuisance factors would not be allowed. um whether it's noise, smell,
uh different things like that that would affect um neighboring properties. Um and the zoning is not changing in terms of uh the lines where zones are or anything like that, but there are a few changes in uh this ordinance um that would allow
different uses elsewhere. Um you know, as were mentioned, um clearing up that uh or allowing small retail or offices within retail. And that's kind of the Warby Parker example that had to go to the zoning board for use variance a few years ago. Um or the one change in the
PO district to allow for barber shops and the like. Um where currently it's mostly uh professional offices. Um and that's across from the shopping center and down uh near the intersection of North Harrison Street and Franklin. So those are just two examples. Um, I think
of maybe the three or four that actually do change the zoning compared to the ones that Councilman uh or or what's allowed in the zoning, I should say, compared to uh what Councilman Cohen uh correctly uh mentioned was clarifications um for other things.
I guess in my example, I'm just wondering whether there could be a dispute about what something like crafting or arrangement of materials means and are we prepared then to to rein that in to something that may
include um an interpretation that we weren't anticipating. >> I just want to yeah underscore what Dustin said about nuisance factors. This was something that was discussed quite extensively in crafting this ordinance
was, you know, whether to allow stuff like that. And it seemed like the best way to resolve it, you know, resolve the the um debate was to say that uses which
might otherwise fall within the permitted uses, but which have nuisance factors, whether it's noise or odors or whatnot, you know, would still not be permitted. And um so that's why you know obviously it
doesn't you know it it's not the dream that experience Princeton has where everything is super clear and you know before you even come in what's going to be allowed. There is still going to be some discretion um around those kinds of issues. But we
do think that we did significantly broaden um the the playing field with the changes we did make. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And ultimately those things all happen today with our definitions. They'll happen after this. They'll
happen with ones that aren't being changed by this. They'll probably happen even after our zoning code rewrite. Um I think that's just the nature of land use where we can't account for everything. Um but there are uh ultimately the zoning officer is the arbiter of that
and then there are ways that an applicant could either directly appeal uh their decision to the zoning board or obviously ask for a zoning variance as well. >> Good. Thanks for that question, Claudia. That was um a good thing to or set of
things to put on the record. Um other questions or comments? Um we typically do take um public comment um not as testimony because testimony takes place on an ordinance in front of
council not before the planning board. But um if anyone who is attending and there are 30 31 people in the attendees room uh would like to address the board about this matter
um this ordinance referral and um the question of consistency with the master plan. Now is the time to raise your hand. I see one hand um has gone up. Mr. Bunting >> can somebody bring him over please? And
then Mr. Mueller swear Sam Bunting in. >> Yes. If you could raise right hand. >> I don't think he's Oh, there we go. Yeah. >> Can you unmute yourself? >> Can you do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth?
>> I do. >> Just want to affirm. Uh Steve, please state your full name and spell your last name. >> Samuel Bunting. B U N T I N G. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Welcome. Go right ahead. I just want to say it seems like a weak
sauce ordinance and should have gone further. Missed opportunity. >> Anything else? >> That's a great comment to bring to council. >> Yeah. Um I'm sorry. I don't mean to make light of
your comment. Is that you've muted yourself, so it sounds like that's what you have to say, right? Okay. Thank you for that and uh and yes, a worthy thought to to take to council
when it considers this ordinance. Thank you. Um other questions from members of the public or comments? Seeing none, I'll close public comment and invite any additional questions or
um comments from the board or a motion if someone would like to frame one. A motion might be a finding that this ordinance is consistent with the master
plan and that the board recommends its approval. >> I will >> I saw your hand starting to go up, Mr. O'Donnell. >> I will make that motion. Uh >> second it. >> That's fine. >> Thank you. Um moved by Mr. O'Donnell,
seconded by Linda Schwimmer. Um, Deedra, would you call the role, please? >> Mr. Binghammer, >> yes. >> Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes.
>> Miss Pearlmutter, >> yes. >> Miss Swimmer, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Anderson, >> yes. Chair Wilson. >> Yes. >> Motion carried. >> Thank you.
Um, next up we have an application. Um, this is from Toll NJ1 LLC, a preliminary and final major site development approval.
This has been carried from April 9th. Uh the address is 29th circle block 5502 lot 5 zone AH14 and this is file number P2525-712P.
Um, Nathan Foot, you want to get us started here? And then, um, I will ask also any of our other professionals whether there's anything
that they want to flag before we are from the applicant because I'm sure that we'll have a lot of >> Lu should I swear in all our professionals at the same time. >> She's frozen. >> Looks like we lost her. >> Looks like she's frozen again. Yes,
Jerry, please swear in all of our professionals. >> Any professionals here or may or may >> I'm back. I'm back. >> I'm going to swear in all of our professionals at this point. Louise. >> Yep. >> If you could raise your right hand and
that would be Nathan, Mr. The the gener generic um >> Victor Anace, Joe Scopian, Dan Dober, Milski, Taylor Gribbon. >> Do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give be the truth?
>> I do. >> I do. >> Just want to affirmed. And Jim has identified who just um swore affirmed. >> Yes, I do. And uh I guess I should let the record reflect that uh I should have been I probably should have been sworn in at
the beginning. Um so that can that be a retroactive uh >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Perfect. Um and then did you want uh us to get everybody's names on the record? >> Jim basically already is done.
>> Okay. Very good. Uh all right then. Uh I guess uh I'll get started as requested by the uh the chair. Um Tollen NJ1 has let me just get set up here.
All right. Oh jeez, I thought I had this uh set up already. Okay. Uh All right. All right. So, Toll NJ1 LLC has filed this application for preliminary and final major site development approval uh to remove the existing improvements on the subject
property and redevelop it with a residential townhouse development consisting of 85 units including 17 affordable units. Uh the development is part of Princeton's fourth round fair share plan in which the intent is to provide 17 affordable units at this
location. Uh I am going to pull up the overhead image. There we go. All right. >> Then we'll mark that just Nathan as
Whoops. Is that a a different image? >> Yes. Well, this is Yeah. So, this is a different image from the one before. >> Okay. The first one. Do you want to go back that or you want to treat this as >> Oh, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought you were No, that that first image that I had pulled up that was uh separate. That was not for this application.
>> I see. Okay, fine. This be the first one. Okay. >> Okay. So, this will be PB1. >> Yep. >> Uh so, this is an overhead image of the subject property along with the surrounding area uh prepared by the NJ parcel explorer website prepared by uh
Ran University. Uh and as with the previous image that we had for the Wascow extension application, uh this has the property lines uh and identifies the roads uh as well. Uh so as can be seen here, you can kind of make it out. It's highlighted in blue. Uh it is an
irregularly shaped lot identified as 29 Thanet Circle uh and is block 5502 lot 5 in the municipality's tax maps. Uh the property has frontage along Thanet Circle. Uh although a portion of the lot uh should be mentioned stretches along
the uh uh Thanet Circle frontage down towards Turhune Road. Uh as can be seen here. Uh it is currently developed with a multi-story masonry building that you can see uh towards the rear uh center of the property.
Uh this uh masonry building was uh previously utilized as an office building but is currently vacant. Uh the property is also developed with access drives off of planet circle as well as parking lots to the front and rear of that existing uh masonry building. The
property is located in the AH14 uh affordable housing 14 uh zone which was established in 2025 last uh that is last year uh and amended earlier uh this year. The property is adjacent to the IRA inclusionary rental apartment uh
district which is developed with the Avlon Princeton uh circle apartment buildings. Uh over here uh it is also next to the RSA residential senior affordable uh district which is developed with the Princeton uh sen uh sorry the Princeton senior living
uh affordable apartment building. Uh the Governor's Lane multif family uh housing neighborhood uh which is located in the OR2 district uh of the Bulmer Township is located to the east uh and north of the site. Uh several single family houses
fronting Turin Road located in the R5 district are to the immediate south uh of the bulk of the property. All right, I'm gonna stop sharing there. gives a brief orientation to the site. Uh the applicant does propose to
>> Nathan, could you go back just a quick moment to the picture? >> Sure. >> I'd like to raise an issue for you to to comment on which I think is relevant. Okay. Although I'm a regular driver on
Turjune, I've done it a hundred times, I've driven by this site so many times I can't count. And what I never really focused on is Harry's brook. And this morning when I took a walk and included
walking through the woods, I was absolutely amazed at Harry's Brook. How wide it was at the very top, how deep it was, how wet it was in places. And not
only that, but the let's call it a tributary. the location of the tributary that's referred to which is literally in the front steps of the building that's about to be constructed. So could you show on the
map where is Harry'sbrook and where is the tributary because I think given given the storm water management plan and related issues we need to know that certainly so I can't um I can't identify
Harry'sbrook on this overhead image but I will point out the uh tributary uh that Mr. Taylor has uh has noted that runs roughly uh where the cursor is moving right now. And as mentioned uh by
Mr. Taylor, it does go in front of the existing building. Uh there is uh I I should say I don't have it marked in my uh uh presentation. Uh but it was noted in the uh memo that there are a number of easements on the site uh several uh
conservation easements included in that uh which does include uh the that tributary uh both this portion here on the uh the north side of the the property uh that the tributary runs through and then also through uh as as
said in front of the building uh and then over through uh to the uh south side of the property. Uh so that's the the tributary that runs through it. Uh Harry'sbrook, what I might do is just defer to the uh the applicant um to uh uh to show that uh on their um uh I
believe that they would be showing that in their uh their presentation. I will also note that uh both uh uh Mr. PCEL, our acting land use engineer uh who's already spoken uh uh before on the Wasco application uh as well as our storm water management uh consulting engineer.
uh he is also on this call on this uh hearing to uh provide uh feedback and testimony. >> Yeah. Nathan Nathan, if I can clarify for Mr. Taylor, um there is a tributary to the uh Harry's Brook tributary um
that runs through the site from the northwest to the southeast. And that thin line that you see just below the property. Um, do you see the thin line, Nathan, where you're Yeah, right there. >> Right there.
>> That is the center line of Harry's Brook Tributary One. Or is it branch one? Joe, help me out. Joe Scoopian. >> Actually, that's that is officially Harry's Brook branch two. >> Branch two. Thank you.
Yeah, there are two branches to Harry's Brook. One comes out of the Princeton Shopping Center, goes through Grover Park, and that is branch one. This is branch two. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. All right. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Joe. >> Okay. So, we'll go ahead and stop sharing that again. And Jack, I know there will be a lot of testimony tonight on storm water management considerations.
>> Um, no, no question about that, both from the applicant and from our own um staff and and uh consulting storm water engineer. >> Thank you, Louise. >> Yep. Absolutely. So then uh and that
that obviously is going to be a big consideration. uh it uh has been a big consideration already with this application. So um um you know I'll let the applicant speak to uh their what they are proposing and then the uh you know Jim and uh Mr. PCEL and Mr.
Scoopian will provide their uh testimony as well. Uh so the applicant does propose to demolish and remove the existing improvements on the property and construct 10 residential buildings labeled uh A through J on the plans. All units will have HVAC and there will be an exterior condenser unit for each
residence outside of their uh building. Uh the architectural plan submitted for review only include schematic design, elevations and floor plans for three buildings uh including buildings G and H which house the affordable units uh and what appears to be the 14 unit market
rate uh building. The facade treatments of all the buildings in the plans include brick, horizontal siding and cementitious panels. Metal awnings are proposed over front entrances and balconies are proposed on the rear facades. Access to and from the site is provided
by two two-way driveways off the planet circle. Drive aisles are provided to the rear of the 10 proposed buildings in order to provide access to the garages. Uh according to the site plan, there will be 146 parking spaces provided in garages and 40 surface parking spaces.
Uh the applicant proposes two external bike racks which provide 18 bike parking spaces each for a total of 36. The site plan notes that there is an there is internal bike parking for each residential unit. The applicant proposes a monument sign next to the southern driveway. Uh the
sign is designed with an over 8ft column base from which a projecting sign of 10 square feet is hung. applicant proposes to remove 180 existing trees and proposes to plant a total of 199 trees at least according to one of the tables in the uh the site plant. Uh and I'll get to that. That's a comment of uh of
ours um in a in a moment. The new trees include 53 shade trees, including four in the bio retention basin, 41 ornamental trees, and 15 evergreen trees. applicant also proposes 68 evergreen shrubs and 323 deciduous
deciduous shrubs including 105 in the bio retention basin. Uh the site plan indicates NJBMP standard basin planting design for the bio retention basin uh and typical foundation plantings are also identified on the site plan. There's obviously a lot more detail than
that in both the memo and I'm sure the applicant will provide additional details on the architectural plans uh and other elements of the site plan. Uh I do want to raise several uh of the issues that were raised in uh my memo. Um those are on pages 5 through9. I'm
not going to hit all of them. Uh but uh I do want to highlight uh quite a few of them uh for further uh comment and and discussion from the applicant. Uh number one, the distribution of very low, low, and moderate income affordable units. Uh number two, the location of the units on
the site, including the desiraability of the location where the affordable units are located. uh how the affordable units are uh stacked townhouse units. Uh bedroom size compliance with uh uniform housing affordability control standards.
Uh applicant should confirm that the facade treatments and floor plans for the remaining seven market rate buildings that are not shown in the architectural plans will be the same as those shown in the architectural plans submitted for the board's review. uh recommended that the applicant submit architectural plans showing all proposed
buildings for approval and signature during resolution compliance. Applicants should testify as to how and why the internal arrangement of the affordable units was uh created. Uh applicants should discuss alternative arrangements to provide easier access to the trash and recycling storage areas for the
seven affordable units that do not have internal access to their designated areas. Uh it is recommended that designated surface parking spaces be provided for the affordable units that do not have garages. Um a detail of the proposed exterior bike rack is provided
on sheet 24 of the site plan set. Uh it is however unclear how 18 bikes will be parked at that rack. That should be addressed. Applicants should address if there is enough surface parking toward the front of the site as compared to the rear especially for visitors to the site the visitors for of uh residents uh
living there. Uh applicant should explore a pedestrian passageway to Governor's Lane andor Avlon Princeton Circle. Um discrepancies in the removed and replacement tree table should be addressed by the applicant uh with confirmation that 204 trees will be provided. Uh the site plan on sheet 17
identified typical planting designs around the buildings. Applicant should clarify how these would be modified for the different buildings. Uh we're almost there. The choice to use individual trash and recycling bins instead of community dumpsters leads to a trash and recycling truck moving through the site and collecting 85
individual bins. Uh is the applicant utilizing a private or public hauler? Uh have they discussed trash pickup arrangements with that hauler? Uh and what will be the frequency of the uh the pickups? Uh the and finally the applicant of the professional should address the issues brought up in these
six other memos provided by the board's professionals and municipal agencies. Uh I know that uh um uh Chair Wilson has uh asked that uh professional the other professionals on the call provide any any highlights of their memos. So I'll leave it to them to uh make any comments
that they need to at this um at this juncture. As I noted, there are other issues uh brought up in my May 4th uh memo, sorry, my May 1st uh memo, but I will leave those for additional discussion uh if needed later on during this hearing. And
with that, thank you. And I'll turn it back over to the uh chair uh or the other professionals as needed. >> Uh thanks, Nathan. Yeah, I'm just uh as far as other professionals, I'm I'm offering the opportunity for people to
weigh in with any matters that they consider real red flags. Uh because I know the applicant will address uh the comments in each of these. I'm just wondering whether any of them are sort of head and shoulders above
others that are cause of particular concern um that the board should know about even you know going in. Jim Purcell. >> Yes. Uh Madame Chair, I'm I'm happy to summarize uh our concerns in our memo.
Um I will not be as um uh detailed as uh Mr. foot was in uh describing the project. But uh we do have a couple of concerns that need to be addressed. Um and we hope that this evening the
applicant will provide some answers to some of these questions. Um one of the uh comments that you will see is related to surface water drainage and um it was noted in the report from um
from uh Mr. Scoopion that the bio retention basin will be treating 1.9 acres of the property and we'll further convey an additional 8 acres of the property that will have been treated by the porest pavement systems. Uh and that we were going to request clarification
from NJD as to whether the 2 acre exceedence and drainage area above the maximum 2 and 1/2 acre drainage area limit for smallcale green infrastructure is acceptable. Um, we have since gotten clarification um from actually the
applicant that we were misinterpreting the uh definition of the 2 and 1/2 acre drainage area limit and that the um area of the basin itself should not be included in that number and they are
actually in compliance with the 2 and 1/2 acre drainage area limit. So that is a uh comment that can be ignored. Um we do need a storm water management facilities operation and maintenance manual um which is typically required to
be filed with the uh normally it's filed with the application um but can be filed after the fact with the municipality. Um we have a bit of a concern about pedestrian and bicycle safety. Um the
parking uh the uh playground uh is on the opposite side of a parking area and a circulation drive and we would like them to address how children are safely going to access the playground. Um we
also would like to see a little bit more uh discussion about bicycle safety and circulation and how this development connects to the municipal bicycle network in a safe manner. Um, Tanet uh, Circle is a bicycle boulevard that
connects to Terune Road and the bicycle boulevard continues on Grover Avenue and it is a circular um, element of our bicycle network that traverses the entire municipality. So, um, some discussion on that would be
helpful. Um the um on-site parking and circulation uh issues that we have uh identified are related mostly to how um the affordable
units um are afforded parking uh since they will not have garage parking as the market rate units will. um accessible parking spaces don't seem to comply uh with the spirit of the um Americans with
Disabilities Act section 208.3 in terms of the location in the uh shortest most accessible route and uh we also have some concern about the distribution of short-term bicycle parking and um
and would like a better illustration of uh long-term bicycle parking. Um, I did summarize our um our comments in terms of um what we
would like to see uh for conditions of approval uh in the memo. And one other comment that's important is related to Harris'sbrook. Um, and that tributary to Harry'sbrook is a sensitive waterway that does traverse their property and uh
we would have concern about protecting it during construction um and not just uh post construction. So like to hear some comments on that. And that's uh I think I encapsulated all of the
engineering comments. Okay, thank you. Um, any comments from other from um, Victor Anok or Dan Doilski
or who am I leaving out >> Joe Scopian, but I think I cover >> Joe. >> Yeah, right at this time. >> Have any Oh, Dan, go ahead. >> No, I just said this is Dan Dorski. I don't have anything to add at this time. As you said, we'll wait the applicant's
uh testimony. >> Okay. I did note that between your um your memo uh Dan and the shade tree committee memo, there was a discrepancy in the number of replacement trees that was um
>> Yes. Yeah. I tried to clarify that >> I tried to clarify that in my report, but uh I think let's see if the applicant has even more update on that or not. >> Okay. I'm sorry, Victor. Yeah, I was I was going to say that uh
from a traffic perspective, vehicular traffic, I didn't find that there will be any issues uh just because of the amount of traffic that will be the site will generate. However, I did
uh make similar or even identical comments that Jim just talked about uh regarding bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the site. Um this it appears that's enough parking but the
distribution of the the parking the locations are not equitable to the buildings. Same thing with the bikes. Uh short-term parkings uh for bikes are located far away from the buildings. And
just like Jim also noted, I has also found that uh there's a parking very close to the playground, bicycle parking. So there's going to be a lot of pedestrian interaction there. Uh so uh I
would like to hear a little bit more from the applicant about uh what they envisage about uh circulation wise and the distribution of uh bike parking and vehicle parking too. Uh other than that
um traffic wise, operationwise, in terms of level of service and delays and all that, there shouldn't be an issue, but pedestrian and bicycle uh should be is a concern. At least the way it's laid out now. >> Okay.
Um thank you. Um Jim Purcell, your hand is still up. Is that intentional? Did you want to circle back? >> No. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Madam Chair. >> Fine, Mr. Scoopion.
>> Yeah, I just just uh Jim was very Jim was very professional in saying that we misinterpreted it. It's not we, it's me. Um, I I missed the definitions of the or the distinctions between drainage area
and contributo drainage area in the in the FL in the stormwater rules and in the ordinance. And so that Jim very nicely deflected that. But yeah, and I want to thank the folks at the over at dynamic engineering, the applicants engineer for pointing that out. and
everyone will be happy to hear tonight that that took down a red flag instead of raising one. Thank you. >> Good. Um, Miss Griffin, >> good evening. Um, I would just like to comment from a zoning perspective that
this is a um compliant application in terms of zoning. Got >> it. Thank you for that. So, are we ready to um hear from the applicant who is here on behalf of Is that you, Mr. Tar?
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, take it away. >> Thank you. We're delighted to be here. Um, there's a reference in Mr. Foot's memo to the compliance with the master plan. I think
it's uh particularly appropriate to point out that this property u was referred to specifically in the 2019 master plan. I'll quote it to say 29th than it is intended for residential redevelopment
and that's what happened and it is a fourth round property affordable housing property an important piece of the total number of units that the town is to provide.
We have five witnesses. Um the first is the representative of toll who's overall responsible for applications such as this and give us quick overview but he'll be available to answer questions on behalf of tool throughout the evening. Then the site civil planning
engineer will testify as to all site civil matters. Traffic engineer the architect and finally the planner will concentrate primarily on affordable housing issues. uh we'll have them sworn and qualified
one by one. We have a deck of slides approximately 40 in number and I'd ask that that deck be marked as applicant one or A1. >> We'll do. Thank you. >> Then with that, we're going to bring up
the slides uh and introduce to you Alex Chal. Chris, um what we traditionally do is just um we swore swear all the um applicants witnesses in at the same time. Justicious. >> I I know that, but it I in this case it
just struck me as inefficient if if it's all right because I've got to qualify them as well. >> Well, I know that um Madam Chair, how would you like to handle it? >> Uh I'm happy to go uh peace meal as Mr. Char suggests. Um they will all need to be um qualified. So, we'll just it
that's fine with me. >> And then >> so Alex could be sworn in. >> Do you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm your testimony about to give me the truth? >> Yes. >> Just want to affirmed. >> Mr. Chal is offered as a fact witness,
not as an expert. So, I'm not going to qualify him as such. But Alex, your title at toll is senior land entitlement manager. >> Correct. And you're responsible to supervise applications such as this one. >> Yes. >> You're also going to run the slides,
which is a tough job. So, you're bring >> Yeah. We're going to share the responsibility a little bit with the uh with the slides here. And just for um a quick heads up for everyone. Um, typically we're used to doing this on a PowerPoint, but because of the size of the plans and zooming in and out, uh,
we've elected to put it in a PDF format, but it won't take away from any of the material that you'll, uh, that you'll see here tonight. Um, I don't know if you need to qualify me anymore, Chris, or for >> You're up. >> Okay. Um, first, I just like to say, uh, good afternoon, madam chair, board
members, um, members of the public. Again, my name is Alex Stoall. Um I'm a senior entitlements manager of Toll Brothers and I'd like to just give a brief uh uh background on the proposed project. Um the collaborative process that brought us here and the overall
intent behind the development. Uh before turning the presentation back over uh to Chris Tar and the rest of our professionals. Uh I'd like to uh start by sincerely just thanking the township uh their consultants um uh for the significant time and coordination and
effort that it took uh to advance this application um at tonight's hearing. Uh the plan before you uh this evening is the result of extensive analysis, coordination, and refinement uh throughout the design process. This concept plan evolved through more than
10 to 15 iterations uh to ensure the project was carefully planned in a manner that uh with the surrounding areas uh which is sensitive with the environmental constraints uh on this site. Uh particular attention was given
uh to the building orientation uh the circulation pattern, streetscape design and placement of the affordable housing units. All of which prove to be especially challenging uh given the environmental constraints um of the property. Uh this application is also
the product of extensive collaboration with the municipality over uh over a year through numerous meetings, work sessions. Uh this property was ultimately incorporated into the municipal's round four affordable housing plan uh as part of the
township's effort to satisfy uh the affordable housing obligation. Uh the zoning ordinance uh governing this property uh designated as AH14 zone district uh was specifically crafted for this development and is fully consistent
with the adopted affordable housing plan. Uh the ordinance permits total a total of 68 for sale market rate units and 17 for sale affordable housing units. Uh this evening, our professional team will walk the board through engineering detail, architectural
design, planning considerations, and the project overall compliance with the town zoning and affordable housing objectives. Um we appreciate the board's time and consideration this evening, and we look forward to presenting this application. Uh Chris, I'll turn it back over to you and the professionals at
this point. >> Thanks, Alex. And bring the slides up and we'll get Dan moving. >> Sure. Uh Dan, I think you were going to bring up the slides and just take control of it on your end. So you're more than welcome to do that. >> That's great. >> Well, do I appreciate it.
>> And and then sorry, just to jump, this seems like a good point to jump in and just ask uh that a copy of this slide deck be provided to the planning office at your uh earliest convenience just for our records. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Thank you. Uh >> so Dan, we're going to have you sworn
and uh >> My pleasure. You swear or affirm the testimony about to give be the truth? >> I do. >> Just want to affirmed. >> Thank you. >> So, Daniel, you are a professional
engineer licensed in New Jersey. >> Uh, yes. Yes, I am. >> Senior principal at Dynamic Engineering Consultants. >> Yes. >> And I thought a particularly relevant qualification. >> You did the engineering work for the Avalon Bay facility across the street.
>> Yes. Yeah. I was heavily involved in all of the design um and entitlements associated with that project. I just was not available for the uh the night of the hearing. So, I did not actually do the testing. >> Sometimes that's a blessing. But in this case, it it's we're glad you're here,
Madam Chair. With that particular qualification, we'd offer Dan up as an expert in site civil engineering. >> We accept your qualifications. Thank you. >> Uh thank you very much. Uh good evening again, uh Madam Chair, members of the board. Um, as you heard, Daniel Chanel,
principal of the firm, dynamic engineering, uh, civil engineer on behalf of the applicant. Um, so with that, I'll take an opportunity to share my screen, and I just want to preface that by saying that um, unless I otherwise say differently, anything that I show this evening will be um, within
that slideshow um, or or that deck of exhibits that uh, that Alex just mentioned. As you're bringing it up, I'll remind you and the others that we like to refer to each slide number as you're talking to it and that way going back through the record, we'll be able
to know what you were looking at when you were talking. >> Understood. Um, well, off the top of my head, I'm not sure what slide number this is, but this is a an aerial plan exhibit. Uh, I'm essentially showing the existing conditions of the uh the subject site and the surrounding area.
Um it's more or less identical to the uh the aerial map that's included in the site plan set uh in conjunction with this application. Um it is identified as aerial map exhibit with uh with a date of today's date May 7th, 2026. Um just
for orientation purposes, North is considered to the um top leftand corner of the page. Uh the subject site itself is identified in the uh the center of the site, the regular shaped lot that you heard about already um in yellow, the bold yellow line with a fan circle
at the bottom of the page. Um so you've already had an opportunity to kind of hear about the surrounding neighborhood, the zoning, so I'll bypass that information. Um but the uh the site itself is
um nine uh just over 9 and a or just under nine and a quarter acres in size. Uh the unnamed tributary as you heard kind of goes from a northern direction to a southern direction where it connects into the Harry's brook tributary branch 2 which runs on the
easterly property line of the subject site. Uh um and circle makes up the main site frontage. Banned circle is a to culde-sac with two travel lanes um plus bike shar jurisdiction of Princeton with a 25 mph speed limit. The site has a
very minor frontage also on Tune Road um which also has two travel res lanes in either direction under local jurisdiction with a 25 mph speed limit. Uh, >> I'm sorry to sorry to break in and interrupt, but you noted that Harry'sbrook
runs on the easterly side of the property, but I think it mean I think you mean the southern part of the property, do you not? >> Yeah, southeasterly. >> It runs it runs >> east or west to east roughly, right? >> Yes. I mean, correctly.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. South is this is the southeasterly property line. You have northeasterly at the top. were skewed a little bit with the with the page being oriented in that direction, but you're >> all right. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to >> interrupt the flow, so to speak. >> If anybody has questions, feel free to
interrupt me. I I do not mind. Um, so access to the site is currently provided via two full movement driveways. Uh, one of which are the northern end of the circle frontage, the other of which is covered by this tree canopy here, um, opposite of a couple of these town homes
for the Avon Bay uh, development. Um pedestrian access. There is a sidewalk along Thanet Circle which provides provides pedestrian access through the site. Um site currently has a vacant um uh multi-story masonary office building
with a footprint that's just over 30,000 square ft. Um and there's an associated parking area for about 190 vehicles. There are two on-site bridges which I'll detail. um one of which is located on more the southern side of the existing
office building that is for vehicles. Um and then right in front of the existing office building there is also a pedestrian bridge which provides access over the top of that tributary that that goes through the center of the site. Um the front and rear of the site are
moderately sloped towards that brook. Um so the highest point of the site is along the rear property line that is up along Governor's Lane. that's about 20 feet higher than um the low point of the ped of the bridge that crosses the brook and then along that circle that's about
10 feet higher than this bridge. So the uh the site's almost shaped like a funnel. Um all the storm water goes towards the center of the site where it's collected um by various existing inlets and conveyed to an existing detention basin. And there's an above ground detention basin located in the
easterly corner of the site which captures the majority of the storm water runoff that's generated by the site. It holds that water back. It detains it and releases it at a controlled rate back to the tributary to the Harry's Brook Tributary. It's a mouthful. U so there
is existing storm water management infrastructure on this site that uh that captures and and uh detains that storm water that's generated currently. Um, we did prepare a phase one environmental site assessment here. Uh, no areas of concerns were identified. We also have a
wetlands LOI from the D New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. There are some wetlands on the subject site which essentially runs adjacent to the tributary going through the center of the site. Those wetlands have a 50 foot um repairarian buffer which are
largely contained within the conservation easements associated with this site which I'll I'll get to shortly. Um we also have a uh FHA flood hazard area verification from the DP. So, the stream that goes through the center of the site as well as the
Harry's Brook tributary both have associated flood hazard areas um and which have been uh detailed by our office and verified by the DP. Uh those flood hazard areas are 100% contained within the conservation easements that
I'll mention shortly on the site. And um also the stream that goes through the center of the site holds the uh holds the entire flood hazard elevation as well. it doesn't over top the the banks of this stream. Um so heavy flooding events is fully contained within that
stream going through the center of site. No flooding concerns which again verified by the D. Um that stream going through the center of site also has a 50ft repairarian buffer associated with it. Um we have to make sure that even if there's existing disturbance within 25
ft of the top of the stream bank um it needs to be restored back to a natural condition. Uh luckily in this case there's only a little bit of that happening. Um so we do have some restorative measures associated with the repairarian buffer for that stream. Um endangered species there was none uh
identified which was also confirmed by a natural heritage lad letter from the D um from August of 2024 confirming the same. Um and as I mentioned there's couple easements uh that are located throughout the site. There are three conservation easements. The conservation easements essentially flank the southern
and uh and northern sides of the property. really anywhere you see dense wooded areas those are conservation easements and that is where the uh environmentally sensitive areas of the site are. So that'll contain all of our wetlands that contains our foot hazard area. Even the green space in between
the parking lot and the existing office building is an existing conservation area. Um meaning we cannot touch it. It's deed restricted. We have to make sure that all of our proposed development is outside of that deed restricted conservation easement. Uh then there's several utility easements located throughout the site. some of
which belonging to the municipalities, some of which belonging to PSENG, uh but none of which will have uh impact to the proposed development. Um as you've heard, the site was previously located within the O-2T
zone, the office research zone. Um and it has been reszoned to the affordable housing AH14 zone uh where stacked home developments are a permitted use. Um, so with that being said, I'll take a moment to switch over to my next exhibit unless anybody has any specific questions about
the existing conditions. >> That was slide one. We'll call this one slide two. >> This will be slide two. This is titled overall site plan rendering. Um, this is also uh dated May 7th, 2026. And all this is is a colorized version of our overall site plan, which is sheet number
six within our site plan set. Um, orientation remains the same. We have static circle at the bottom of the page and then the darker uh shaded green areas will be the limits of the site in question. Um the brown or tan colors are proposed buildings. The dark gray would be pavement and green space again
obviously landscaped area. Um, so under proposed conditions, we are seeking approval to demolish the existing uh improvements associated with the office building for the construction of 10 stacked town home buildings, which will include two affordable buildings. Uh, in
total, we're looking at 85 total units, 68 of which will be market rate, 17 will be affordable. Um, all of these buildings are alley loaded products. This means that anywhere that you see the building fronting on a paved surface, there is an apron providing
access to garages that are located underneath or on the on the first level um of each of the proposed buildings. Every single market rate unit has a uh a tandem garage. Essentially, what this means is it is a a garage that fits two
cars um one parked in front of the other. And then the COA units um or the affordable homes have 10 singlecar garages. Uh and again you heard that there will be 17 affordable. So seven of which of those units will not have a dedicated garage but there will be
dedicated parking spaces for them which I'll detail a little bit further uh shortly. So walking around the site starting at the southern portion of the site there are two buildings proposed. U these are buildings labeled A and B. Both of them are identical uh just mirrored. Um they will have four market
rate units each within them. Um and then each building will have four twocar t can uh tandem garage spaces. So there's 28 parking spaces associated within these two buildings. Each one of these buildings has a footprint of just under 8,000 square ft.
Uh moving to the right hand side of the page u or I'm sorry left hand side of the page would be building C. We have identified it's fronts on uh Thanet. Um so the front entrance, pedestrian entrance will be fronting on Thanet. The rear of the building will be where you have your garage entrances. 14 units in
there. And again, each one of those units has a two-car garage and a footprint of um just below 8,000 ft². I'm sorry. Building A and B has a footprint of just over 2,000 ft. 2300. Next building directly to the uh northeast of building C is identified as
building D. 12 units in there. all market rate. Again, each one of those has a two-car garage uh in this alley. Um and a footprint of just over 6,700 square ft. Moving further to the northeast along the site and crossing the unnamed tributary, you have
buildings E and F. Both of those are identical. Um those will have six units in them each with the six uh tandem garages with a footprint of just under 3500 square ft. Um, building G and building H, those are
are our affordable buildings. Uh, building H will have seven COA units and four onecar garages with a 4,300 ft² footprint. And then building H will have seven COA units um uh with four onecar garages. I'm sorry,
building G has 10 COA units and uh six onecar garages. Get my numbers mixed up. Uh moving a little bit further to the northeast uh building I which is the same exact building as uh footprint as building D which is at the front edge of the site. So again 12 units with 12
tandem garages. And then finally to the northern corner of the site we have building J 10 market rate units with the 10 garages um on the uh on the bottom floor. Uh the market rate buildings are four stories and have a height of 44 and
1/2 ft above the finished floor of the building. and the COA units are three stories affordable units are are three-story buildings and have a height of about 36 ft above the finished floor elevation. Based upon the municipality's definition of building height, building
D is going to be our highest proposed building. Um, from the um existing grade measured around the perimeter of the building, we're looking at a height of 46.1 ft, which is still below the compliant 50 foot maximum height um for
this zone. Um, moving on back to access. Access to the site remains exactly the same as you see it today. We'll still have the two full movement driveways in the same location that they're located today. Um, both of those have curb cuts about 75 ft in
width, 75 to 80 ft width, um, with a, uh, with a drive aisle width of 24 ft, which is adequate and compliant for two-way circulation. Um, also important to note for talking about access that we are proposing some improvements to Thanet Circle itself. Um, at the
intersection of Thanet Circle and Tune Road, we will be proposing a boulevard style entrance to the entrance of Thanet Circle. So, Boulevard style entrance is essentially two lanes, one being inbound to the circle, one being outbound. Each one of those lanes will be 12 feet in
width, but there will be a center 4 foot wide um landscaped uh median in the center. Um this is uh this conservatively applies to the residential site improvement requirements where that you need to have two forms of egress from a residential community and essentially this will
comply or or apply to the entire residential nature of circle. Um but also serves as a very nice aesthetic improvement. uh add some green space and and provides a nice residential style um to the community as you enter off of Tur
Road to the residential nature of Thanet Circle. Um it does require a little bit of widening of Thanet Circle. We have to widen it the roadway, the curb line about one ft on one foot on either side. Um but we do have that nice green strip that goes down the center to add some some greenery and landscaping
improvements as you enter the community. Um once you get onto the site, circulation again is provided uh via two-way 24 foot wide drive aisle throughout the entire site. The only place where you do not have 24 ft is once we get to the existing um vehicle
bridge. This bridge is just under 20 ft in wide uh width. However, it is still adequate enough for two-way traffic. For two-way traffic, you need a minimum of 18. We're just under 20. So, you're still able to get two-way traffic in there. Uh the intent is to maintain the existing vehicle bridge as well as the
existing pedestrian bridge located directly to the uh northwest of it. Um both of those bridges were evaluated by a structural engineer and um they were identified as uh in safe working order. Uh we do have the we are potentially replacing the pedestrian bridge with a
new one. Um but the proposal would be to just resurface the existing vehicle bridge. Um other than that, the rest of the site you have 24 feet in width. Uh we'll have granite block curbing, full height curbing, uh where anywhere around the site where you have full height curb. Uh and then we have concrete
curbing proposed for any depressed curbs and flush curbs just for ADA compli uh compatibility as well as uh as maintenance um along these uh entrance aprons to the garages for each of the units. Uh we ran vehicle circulation throughout
the site. The site has is able to accommodate a 35 foot long uh garbage truck as well as Princeton's 47 foot long ladder truck. Uh has the full availability to circulate the entire site and access each of the uh the proposed uh units.
We have 6-in thick reinforced concrete aprons in front of all the uh garages providing accesses into the garage. And uh we also provide ADA compliant sidewalks u throughout the community which uh pro promote pedestrian walkability and uh connectivity to uh
both the public right of way and all areas of the site. Um the intent is to make sure that we're trying to segregate vehicles from pedestrians as much as we can. Um so by providing dedicated sidewalks that provide access to all areas of the site, I think we're
accomplishing some uh pedestrian safety improvements um for this subject site. Um again, the the proposed layout provides a safe and efficient circulation throughout the site. Um and uh and essentially, you know, gives it a nice walkable community and uh and
community feel uh to the development as a as a as a whole. Um, as far as other site improvements, we are proposing a playground in the eastern corner of the site, which is all the way up here. Um, that will have some play equipment, picnic tables, uh,
benches. It will be fenced in by a 4ft high aluminum black fence, and the base material underneath that play equipment would be a playground rated, uh, wood chip, uh, which would be safe for for children. There's various, uh, seating amenity areas throughout the site. We have a little courtyard area between the
two affordable units with some benches. Um, on the other side of the stream, we have a nice uh plaza area directly to the uh southeast of building D. And then there's also another small seating area um right near the entrance off of Bennett Circle. Uh there's also a
requirement within the zone to make sure that uh wherever you have buildings that have the front of the building facing one another. So the frontage being opposite of the um the garages, then you need to have a landscaped courtyard area. So you can see wherever we have buildings facing one another like
buildings D, F and E, you have landscaped area um as well as the two affordable units as well as building I you have a nice courtyard area with some landscaping improvements. So we comply with that requirement. We have um mailboxes proposed near
buildings uh D and H. So, there's a mailbox directly at the northern corner of that. And then on the bottom portion of the site, we have another mailbox that is proposed just to the uh the west of building D. No trash enclosures proposed. All of the
trash will be stored in the garages in typical residential style trash uh trash cans for the market rate units. For the affordable units, we do have proposed uh trash closets more or less at the western corner of building H as well as
the eastern corner of uh building, I'm sorry, at the um southern corner of building G. This is where your trash cans will be stored for those units. Um still accessible for all of the residents that are living in there. allows them to bring the trash to a single single location and then a
private hauler uh would come and pick up all the trash can at the bottom of everyone's uh driveway aprons and from those affordable uh unit trash uh trash rooms. Um in general, the redevelopment is completely within the limits of the
previous disturbance from that office building. Um so we're staying completely outside of those deed restricted um conservation easements. We're not disturbing that area at all. Uh but all in all, the improvements do result in the net increase of just under a half of acre of new impervious surface coverage
which increases the existing from 27% of the site up to 32% of the site will now be impervious. However, that is still compliant with the maximum of uh 45. However, in order to mitigate the increase in impervious surface coverage, we are proposing a complex storm water management design that complies with
current municipal and state level stormwater regulations. Um, this includes modifying the existing basin as well as adding five new pvious pavement basins as well as an additional new above ground bio retention basin which
I'll touch on a little bit uh later on. As far as grading, the proposed site has been graded to maintain the existing graded drainage patterns, also to provide ADA accessibility throughout, limit the disturbance of the surrounding area and to protect the environmentally sensitive areas of the site. Uh so in
order to achieve this, we do have six new retaining walls proposed around the site. Um and this allows us to tie into the existing grade while protecting those environmentally sensitive areas as well as the surrounding properties and uh as many mature trees as we could. Um
we also have a small gabian basket retaining wall for one of our basins along the Bennett Circle um uh frontage that is uh associated with one of our basins and that's essentially almost like a rock style wall u to help retain um the earth and provide some stormwater
management storage. But it's important to note that all of these walls are less than 6 and 1/2 ft in height. Uh so they're not considered accessory structures. Um buildings C, D, and J. So C, D, and the very northern building up here is J. Those buildings are stepped.
What that means is wherever you have a vertical demising wall between units. Um there is an 8 in difference in the finished floor elevation. So essentially what that allows us to do is allows those longer buildings to follow the natural grade of the site. Uh reduces
the need for unnecessary retaining walls and it also reduces the need for uh unnecessary height of these buildings. So it essentially follows the grade of the earth. Um other than that all the other buildings that are proposed will be a single slab on grade um construction. Uh bulk standards as you heard from the
zoning official we are completely compliant. We are not seeking a single variance or waiver associated with this project. Um we comply with all those bulk standards of the new zone. So stepbacks um building separation coverage height all fully compliant. Um
we're also complying with the buffer requirements. There's a 10 a requirement to maintain any existing trees within the first 10 ft of the property frontage unless we need it for site access. We're utilizing those existing driveways. So any of those existing trees that are within the first 10 ft of the property
line, we are being maintained and we also do have a natural existing buffer along the uh adjacent residential uses. Um, as far as parking, uh, in the AH14 zone, um, there is a minimum parking
space requirement for this type of use. So, when you have a stacked town home with one or two bedrooms, one parking space is required per unit. Uh, when you have a stacked town home with three or more bedrooms, two parking spaces are required per each dwelling unit. And then on top of that, we need.35
parking spaces overall per dwelling unit um, for visitors. and those must be placed in common areas throughout the site. So doing that calculation for the overall site calculation, there's 47 1 to twobedroom units and 38 3bedroom units and 85 units overall. So saving
you from the math, that results in 153 parking spaces required. We have 186 parking spaces proposed. This includes 146 garage spaces and 40 surface level spaces uh that are parked throughout the
site. I know there's kind of a concern with parking distribution, making sure that there's enough parking on either side of the site um meaning on either side of the tributary because the site almost functions as two separate layouts. Um so we did further break down the parking um for both the top portion
of the site and the bottom portion of the site. So applying that same parking calculation to the number of bent uh units um for each portion of that site, we do exceed the parking requirement for both the uh northeastern and southwestern portions of the site so
that it is adequately parked on both either side of that that stream. Um ADA parking, all of the garages are deemed as accessible. Um, however, we do need to provide handicap accessible parking for the 40 surface spaces. For
the 40 surface spaces, uh, per ADA code, two ADA parking spaces are required. We took the opportunity to place them up by the, uh, playground. We felt this was the best location because playground is kind of a common public space where, you know, someone that might have um, need
an ADA parking space, maybe they'll want to be visiting the the playground with children. Um, and it's also closer to the affordable units, uh, which all of them do not have ADA parking. Um, it is the obviously the closest accessible route to the playground. Um, and there
is also an accessible route using the, um, blue painted crosswalk providing access to press curves and the fully ADA compliant sidewalk providing access throughout the site. Um, so maybe it is not the closest um, parking space to some of the buildings. it does provide
full accessibility from those spaces um throughout the site. Um but more than happy to talk about that a little bit more in details. I'm sure there will be some questions coming up. Uh minimum parking space size 9 by8. We are fully compliant with that. Um and uh any of
the parking spaces for the seven affordable units that do not have garage spaces. the applicant was willing to reserve parking spaces uh for those seven units to make sure that they have a parking space that's close to the unit uh when they do not have a garage space.
>> Daniel, can we just interrupt for one sec? >> Of course. >> You talked about having done a calculation showing that there's adequate parking both on the u what I'm going to call the western portion of the site uh and the eastern portion. But can
you be more specific? Was there a ratio of like visitor parking per dwelling unit that you were shooting for? And you know, how does because it's hard for us to know what are dedicated surface
parking for units versus visitor parking? Can you tell us what you've got >> specifically in visitor parking both sides of the site? >> Yep, absolutely. So the rear of the stream. So starting on the eastern side of the site, um we are required to have
90 parking spaces overall. U we have 106 proposed. So back in that area there is 51 units in total. For those 51 units, you're required to have.35 visitor spaces. Uh so 51 *.35 equates to 18 um
visitor spaces. And in the rear of the site, there are 28 visitor spaces or or surface parking spaces. So even if you subtract out seven spaces that could be dedicated to the seven COA units that do not have a dedicated parking garage, you
would still have 21 parking spaces that would be available for for visitors, whereas 19 is required. And then if you look at the south portion of the site, or I'm sorry, the uh the western portion of the site, remember all of these units will have their own twocar tandem
garages. Doing the math for the front portion of the site, we're required to have 63 parking spaces. We have 80 overall. And of the um the the 50 or I'm sorry, the 34 units that are proposed in front of the site, that requires um 12
surface parking spaces. And we do provide exactly 12 surface parking spaces in front of the stream. >> Thank you. >> So hopefully that answer your question for you. >> Um as far as electric vehicle charging requirements, there is the state requirement to provide 15% of the spaces
on site for residential use or multif family residential use to be EV make ready. Um and 40 or and one-third of them need to be built out at the time of construction. So for the 40 parking spaces that are on the surface of the site, 15% of that would equate to six
electric vehicle charging spaces. And we do provide six um two of them directly to the east of building B. Um two of them up near the playground and then there's another two of them uh directly to the northwest of building H.
Um and then all or the uh at least 22 of the garage parking cases will be EV or EV make ready. Um, but being in a garage, if a resident has an electric vehicle and they want a charger in there, I'm sure uh accommodations can be made for them. Um, but we'll make sure
that we comply with the state requirement. Uh, for bike parking, one bicycle parking space is required for each 1.6 bedrooms. So, not units, but bedrooms of a multif family dwelling with three or four more dwelling units in the
municipality. Um so overall we have 205 bedrooms proposed for this development. This equates to 128 spaces required uh or bike parking spaces required. We have 138 park bike parking spaces. Of that
128 that is required um 80% of them need to be long-term. So 80% of 128 is 102 and then uh 20% need to be short-term. So shortterm of that 128 is 26 spaces. The long-term uh bike parking is
accomplished by storing the bikes within the units themselves. Our project architect can uh can point that out a little bit better how they propose to do that. As far as the short-term bike bike parking, we do have uh three bike racks that are proposed throughout the site. One of which directly next to building
C. Um the other of which is uh up near the playground and the last of which is directly to the northwest of building H. Each one of those is uh capable of storing 18 bikes. This is detailed on
our bike um rack detail that is on page 24 of our site plan set. Essentially, it's your standard old school bike rack that you would see um that has a single um normal grate in the center of it. And you're available to park bikes from either side essentially head in 90° to
that that edge. And you'll see in there, you can even count on the detail um that there's essentially two slots. So the bikes would alternate one side versus the other. So they are capable of fitting 18 bike. Um but again if we need to further dist distribute bike parking throughout the site, we need to make
some smaller bike racks uh and place them a little bit more often throughout the site. I'm sure we can find a home for that and uh and we can discuss that a little bit further as well. >> Um as far as signage, we do have one proposed monument sign. This is directly
to the south of the southern driveway entrance into the site. This is a fully compliant with the zone monument sign. Essentially, it'll be like a 4x4 brick pillar that's eight feet high. It'll have a can of levered um sign that kind of hangs off of it. Um very decorative
in nature. Really not meant to advertise the site. More of a site identification feature. Uh letting visitors or or pickups, drop offs really identify that this is the entrance to the site so they know where they are. Um and uh and fully compliant and and will match essentially
the architecture of the building itself. Um the sign face the sign that will be hanging from that count lever space is only uh 10 square ft. So very small and they'll have a small um solar pan panled uh external light to illuminate it which would be facing down uh to help throw
some light on that that sign itself. Um storm water management I'll be brief. I'm sure there'll be some more questions on it but essentially we designed our storm management system to comply with New Jersey soil erosion and sentiment control standards. municipality of Princeton as well as state standards.
Um, this development meets the definition of a major development um due to disturbance greater than a quarter acre as well as the new impervious surface coverage. So, in order to comply with stormwater management requirements, we take a look at three main things. That's quantity, quality, and storm
water uh groundwater recharge. So what we do in order to study our site um we study the topography of the site in order to establish the drainage areas and figure out where the water goes to under existing conditions. This is known as our point of analysis. In this case our point of analysis is the unnamed
tributary that ultimately flows to Harry's Brook tributary. After we have that, we also study the soil properties and the ground cover. Um and we use this information to essentially establish our existing runoff rates for the various design storms. um at in order to get our
u starting point for how we need to design our storm water um and this includes our groundwater uh recharge uh volume. Once we have our existing parameters, we use this information to design the proposed stormwater management system in order to meet the local and state requirements for those
three main design constraints which are again quantity, quality and groundwater recharge. Um in our case, compliance was achieved by the use of five proposed pvious pavement basins. Those pvious pavement basins are located uh directly
to the eastern most edge of the site. You can kind of see this different hatching on the pavement areas as well as between the affordable units as well as buildings E and F. This is all pvious pavement. Um and then then once you get to the uh western side of the tributary,
there are three more pvious pavement basins. one of which um in uh in this area before you get to the bridge. There's one more that is between buildings A and B. And then finally, the fifth pvious pavement basin is between buildings C and D. Um pvious pavement
accomplishes two things. It collects the surface water that is generated by the motor vehicle surface. This is considered dirty water because you have grit and oil and sand and everything else that comes off car tires. It filters through the pvious pavement. The pvious pavement uh captures any
impurities of that storm water. And then below the pvious pavement system, there is uh essentially gravel uh which acts as a storm water detention system which detains the storm water and releases it um at a controlled rate. In addition to those five pvious pavement basins, we
have a proposed bio retention basin. Bio retention basin is located right along the front of the site and really what it's going to look like is a depression with some plantings in it. So, it's meant to capture storm water. It's meant to treat the storm water by allowing the storm water to percolate through um uh
the the soil level the the the soil layer of that basin, but it just looks like a planted area. So, you'll have wet sight tolerant plants and trees um that will look nice, but it also treats the storm water and again acts as a tention feature. And then finally, as I
mentioned earlier, we have that existing detention basin located at the northern uh the eastern corner of the site. That existing basin will be upgraded from a standard detention basin as it is today to a bio retention basin as well. So this basin now will also be revamped to
have some nice plantings in it um which again will accomplish those two things of cleaning the storm water, detaining it, and releasing it at a control rate. By utilizing these basins that we propose, we do fully comply with the state and local storm water standards.
Um, and I believe, you know, Mr. Scopian and Purcell both have some minor comments at this point, but there's nothing that we feel we cannot overcome. Um, I think this is a design that that functions well and it meets all the requirements. um and we'll be able to accomplish that need and still we'll end
up seeing a reduction in storm water rates when compared to existing conditions um for the storm water that is leaving this site. As far as groundwater recharge, we actually have poor soils in this area. So under existing conditions, no water is really able to get back into the ground. So under proposed conditions, that stays the same. So no change there. Uh but
again, with these additional green spaces at the bottom of the basin, uh if there's any opportunity for some of the storm water to get back into the ground, that's great. If not, all the basins do have under drains, meaning that you're not going to see these basins sitting wet for a long time. There is still another way for storm water to exit this
basin if it's not able to percolate through the soil. And again, this is fully compliant with state and local regulations. Um, as far as utilities to the site, we have uh we have have confirmation from all the utility providers that service is available to the site. Um, so gas,
electric, water, and sewer. Um there are various uh gas will be provided off the fence circle. Um the electric will be provided from both Governor's Lane. There's an existing easement that is to the benefit of the subject site that'll provide it to the uh eastern side and
then we'll get electric service off of Circle for the western side. Um as far as water, we have already reviewed the design with New Jersey American. Uh we'll have a fire service and a sprinkler or a domestic service to each of the proposed buildings. We're also
proposing a uh fire hydrant um at the uh northern limit of the site to provide fire service uh to those buildings. Um we will need D approval for BWSE. Um and then finally for sanitary sewer, we're also providing two separate connection
points for sanitary. Um there's an existing manhole that is directly to the east of the existing um vehicle bridge. We'll be connecting into that sanitary manhole which discharges sanitary flow toward an existing municipal owned
easement that is along the southern side of the property. That'll collect all of the sanitary sewer from the eastern side. Um the western side of the development will discharge the sanitary shore uh to the main within circle and again we'll also need D approval for
treatment works um associated with this site as well but uh an approval that is potentially administrative since we've already have confirmation that treatment facility and the municipality has uh has availability to service these subject sites.
Um lighting for the site we do have site lighting proposed. uh was designed to comply with IIEES and Princeton lighting standards for residential use. Really to provide adequate lighting and safety um and security while trying to minimize off-site glare and uh protect
environmental sensitivity areas. Um so we do have 20 polemounted decorative style LED area lights um that are located at or mounted at 14 ft above grade. Uh you can see them on the on the site plan identified with uh these symbols near the trees. Um there will
also be 46 building mounted again decorative style LED lights um on the building. These will be mounted about 22 ft above grade. Um all these lights will be full cut off fixtures meaning that you won't be able to uh or they'll be dark sky compliant. You won't have any
uplighting um that is that is impacting light pollution. We're making sure that we comply with the light levels at all the property lines. Again, fully compliant uh application and uh providing energy efficient lighting. Moving on to landscaping. Essentially, when we always look at these sites for
landscaping is we look at it with an overall philosophy to use varying colors, textures, heights really to to create an aesthetic pleasing and visually inviting environment that complements the proposed architecture um while softening the hard lines of the improvements and enhancing the overall
appearance from the site from the perspective of the adjacent roads and properties as well as uh this is going to be a home. You want to provide a peaceful and inviting site for residents and their visitors. Um, and if you've visited any of the other toll properties, you know that their sites
are very wellmaintained. They have nice landscaping and it's going to be no different here. Um, we have a substantial landscaping design and we will look to maintain that. Uh, we will have to take some trees down for the proposed development. Uh, disturbing the existing office complex, we're looking
at removing about 180 existing trees. doing the tree calculation. Per the municipality, 204 replacement trees are uh required and we will absolutely comply with that requirement. Right now, our landscaping plan calls for 202
trees. That was a miscount on our part. We can absolutely find a home for two more trees to make sure we comply with that 204 placement tree requirement. um in total including the trees plus all the various flowering shrubs, evergreen shrubs, ground plantings, we're looking
at over a thousand new plantings uh that will be proposed throughout the site. So we'll be very nicely landscaped. Um as you heard in opening comments, we do have a landscaping schematic for foundation plannings around the base of each of these building types. Uh
schematic meaning that it's going to follow the same pattern, the same scheme for each of the buildings. Um but obviously varying uh lengths and uh and widths of these buildings. So that number will have to be adjusted accordingly. And we also have a schematic planning detail for the two
proposed bio retention basins. As you heard me state earlier, we do have plantings proposed in each one of those basins to accomplish storm water management and also to add some aesthetics to the site to be fully planted in accordance with that uh that landscape schedule which is a D approved landscape schedule. Uh again maintaining
as many existing mature trees as we can especially within the conservation easements and along the frontage of the site. Um so it will be a very nicely landscaped site. Um so wrapping up here um we do have various other outside agency approvals that we're seeking. Uh
we've already applied to the Mercer County Planning Board. We have some minor comments from them which we will uh comply with. Um we'll be uh seeking approval or certification from the Mercers County Soil Conservation District. Uh we'll also be applying to the Delaware Rarit and Canal Commission.
Uh they'll be reviewing uh stormwater management associated with this site. We'll be looking for some freshwater wetlands permits, essentially general permits uh for the maintenance of the existing uh features on the site and uh provide some underground utility lines
below the existing stream. The water line is going to go underneath B for directional drilling below the existing stream to be able to provide service to the rear portion of the site. Also be seeking from the D a flood hazard area individual permit uh which will verify
our flood storage volume making sure that we're complying with repairarian zone uh requirements um reveating some of the repairarian zone. As you know from as I mentioned my opening comments, the existing building essentially goes right up to uh within the repairarian
zone associated with that that unnamed tributary. So we're restoring that back to a natural condition. So we're going to have less impacts to that existing stream by providing some more separation, but we do need a permit for that. Uh and then as you heard me earlier mention, we'll also be seeking
approval from the DP for water and sewer service. Um, also had the opportunity to go through the very detailed review memos from your board professionals and your uh, municipal professionals. Uh, from a site civil perspective, there was nothing in there that I saw as a red
flag. No showstoppers. Um, everything that I saw on that from a site civil perspective, we can absolutely comply with and we intend to um, as we continue to work towards our entitlements of this site. Um, so Mr. Carr, I think I hit everything, but if I missed anything,
feel free to redirect me. If not, I make myself available for any questions that the board members may have. >> You uh you hint a lot. >> Madame Chair, it's 9:13. I know you were going to have a break somewhere in here. Should we could have questions of Dan,
remembering that we have a traffic expert and an architect, so those questions might be any questions of that sort might be held till later. We can do it now or after the break. Um, I see David's hand up already and I I
know I have questions, too. My impulse is to break and then start questioning and and such afterward. Um, after a 10-minute break, uh, is that okay with you, David and Jack? You both got your hands up. Okay, so 9:13, uh, let's
reconvene at 9:23 sharp. Uh, see you then. Thank you. Welcome back. I think we have just a couple people who There's Claudia, David. There's David. Okay, we'll reconvene. um and start with
uh questions um for now I've lost him on my screen the gentleman who just testified. >> Okay, great. Um David Cohen and then Jack Taylor. David,
>> thanks. Uh two questions. one, I don't think I heard uh Daniel address the engineering concern about how the stream would be protected during construction. So, I'd like him to address that.
>> Yeah, my pleasure. So, that'll be >> Whoa, whoa, let me just ask my second. And the second question is for the units without garages. I'd like to better understand how the uh long-term bike
parking can work. I'm concerned that if the intent is to have bikes actually stored in the units that somebody use like a three sto three three floor walk up that's not a viable solution. So, and I know you said the architect was going
to address this, but at least, you know, it's it's in it interacts with the site plan because there may need to be some cover parking. >> David, we have a we actually have a drawing that the architect would show you where within the unit at the bottom
of the unit it's going to be stored. >> Okay, Ben, go ahead and answer the first question. >> Yeah, no problem. Yeah. So the uh the stream protection um will be in part associated with our soil conservation district certification. So as I mentioned when I was kind of going over
the existing conditions the the site slopes down almost in a valley towards that stream. So both sides of the development will drain towards that stream. So we'll have silt protection uh fencing up on either side of the the stream along the limited disturbance which would capture any silt that's
flowing towards it. Um there's ways that we can further reinforce that. we can do what's called super silt fence, which is a little bit more of a heavy duty uh fencing that that tends to get blown over or ran over as easy. Um, and then if you're concerned with water quality as well, I know when they're doing work
along streams, you can put some of those floating oil separator barriers that would capture any, you know, potential for for oil going downstream that you've run across the stream that water can still flow beneath it. So, there's various different ways that we can protect it. Um, and more than happy to do that. So, we know understand the sensitivity of it. We want to make sure we're not going past that limit of
disturbance. It'll be staked out by a surveyor. Um, and we'll make sure we're in compliance with the soil erosion sentiment control standards for the state. >> Okay, great. Thanks. >> Of course, >> Mr. Taylor and then Nat Bodheimer.
>> Thank you. I have two two quick questions and then one observation. First of all, when when when you see Harry's Brook, it's it sounds small. You think it's small. There doesn't seem to
be much water. And yet, when you walk around, it's crystal clear that it is in an enormous recessed setting with trees. And when I think about that in the context of SWM's memo, they used the
language uh really really big flooding. I think extreme flooding was the terminology I used so far. My question is simply how much attention did you spend to the risk
of extreme flooding in the creation of the storage management facility? It seems to be a fundamental issue, maybe the most important first issue. >> Understood. That's a really good question. I might even lean on Professor
Scoopian um for some some input as well if he wants to add. But when we prepared our So, I'll start with a um flood management standpoint. When we prepared our application to the DP for a um
for a for our our foot hazard area verification, we did prepare a model of this stream. So this stream is unstudied, meaning that there is not a FEMA map or a state studied stream associated with with this map. Um what we had to do instead is we actually had
to model the stream, meaning we had to go out and survey the stream. We had a survey upstream and downstream of the site, get cross-sections of the stream, determine the contributo drainage area that goes to the stream, and we actually plug it into a model and we essentially
run this model utilizing flooding conditions. So, we don't even use current rainfall data. We look at the year 2100, so the projected rainfall data for the 100-year storm. We not only run that through the stream, we
add another 25% on top of that. So we take the year 2100 100red-year storm from that year. So even greater than what the 100red-year storm is considered, we run 125% of that of the stream and that becomes our flood hazard elevation. And that flood hazard area
elevation is contained completely within the unnamed tributary that goes through the center of the site and flows into the the Harry's Brook tributary. The Harry's Brook tributary is a map stream. It has a flood hazard area associated with it and even applying the new stormwater map or the new state rules
for flood elevation calculation which would be adding an additional 3 ft from that FEMA elevation. It is still completely within the conservation areas of the site and our development will be outside of that that flood flood uh hazard area. And then from a stormwater magic perspective we are making sure
that our storm water rates are not exceeding what leaves the site under existing condition. And remember this site has a existing basin. So we looked at the site in two separate conditions under existing conditions um which was verified by the state that this is how
we would model the site. So in order to get our existing parameters, we looked at the rates of the storm water leaving that basin under existing conditions. So this basin was built sometime in 2005 which complied with the storm water management rules that came out in 2004 which was essentially the basis of those
rate reductions that we hear today. So, we looked at that. We determined the rates using today's current storms leaving that site or that basin. And then we also looked at the site as if it was completely undeveloped and 100% wooded. And we determined the runoff rates from the site when it was completely undeveloped and fully wooded.
And we have to take the more conservative of the two of that. And surprisingly enough, the more conservative was current conditions. So that meant that the storm water leaving the site under concurrent conditions was slower than as if the site the storm water would be leaving the site if it
was completely undeveloped. And then we had to make sure that we were not exceeding those rates under proposed conditions. So we took a lot of attention to detail. We worked with professor scoopian for a while u to make sure that we were meeting those requirements and I think we we accomplished that. So hopefully that answers your question. I know long-winded response but we spent a lot
of time on it and I wanted to make sure I try to explain it as best as I could. >> Very comprehensive response. Thank you Dan. Second uh quick question. What is the implication to storage management control of hydraulic soil and how does
that factor into a bio retention basin which isn't 100% clear to me in the first place. >> So you're asking about the water's ability ability to get through the soil >> and filter through it. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. So in most cases or in some cases when you have sites with really good soil conditions, so nice sandy soil where you get great infiltration rates, those bio retention basins um essentially stormer goes into them, the first flush of the storm, normally the
first inch and a half, two inches of storm water uh would be considered the dirty water because that's the first flush. It's cleaning off all the pavement areas. So most of the time when you have good soil conditions the storm water will get into those basins or get into the pvious pavement filters through
and all those particulates and solids and oils are filtered out by the sand layer and then it further infiltrates into the soil below that. In the case like you do on this site where you have poor soil conditions and poor infiltration abilities underneath that first foot and a half of soil media the
at the base and bottom we have an under drain. So what that is is a perforated PVC pipe um which after that first flush of that storm water filters through your 18 in of soil there it's then collected by those perforated pipes and then conveyed to our outlet control structure
and that is our structure that is actually detaining and uh releasing that storm water at that controlled rate to make sure we're still meeting our quantity reductions. So you still get those filtering properties of the soil even when you don't have the ability for the storm water to get back into the ground below it.
>> Yep. Got it. and quick observation. Uh I walked across the foot bridge and we drove across the the car bridge. As a layman, both need attention. They're not perfect. >> But from a structurally structural
engineering perspective, I understand, >> but I believe we do intend to replace the pedestrian bridge and resurface the uh the vehicle bridge. >> Good, good, good, good. Thank you. Thanks, Jack. Nat, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I'm hoping
these questions aren't getting ahead of where we are, but uh, let me just let me just check um, because I think that they may relate to the questions that we're asking of the applicant. Um the first one the the first question would be directed to planning staff and and
perhaps to council member Cohen which is just a a reminder of what public process this project has gone through up up to this point. So what is sort of what engagement
in public there has been? And the second is a question about just a reminder what it is what it is the action that we are taking here this evening with this application and you know what what actions we may be preparing ourselves to
take given that there's an ordinance for this and this is part of the fourth round housing plan. I just want to make sure I understand what latitude we have. Um what kinds of uh things we may be in a position to ask for. Uh what kinds of
things we might not be in a position to ask for. Um just I I hope that that's germanine to the questions that we're posing to the applicant. Um is was sort of the the motivation for those linked questions.
>> Yeah. So, if Madam Chair, if you don't mind, I'll take a first stab at that. >> Sure. Yep. >> And then, uh, if need be, uh, Mr. Leco can also, uh, step in about the, um, additional elements of the process that's, uh, brought us to this point. Um
so this uh this application as has been noted um or rather this site is part of the uh municipality's fourth round uh housing element and fair share plan um
that did go through a uh I don't want to go through the whole history of the uh fourth round uh because that could that I've I've done full presentations uh on that before not before this board but um they they can take a while so I don't want to go too
much into depth on them but um the the the process that was undertaken was that uh the state gave the municipality uh uh a required number of units. If I can be if I can be clear, I mean my question is really about public process in Princeton
at the council and to what extent has this been there been opportunities for the public to engage on this to this point? >> Oh okay. Uh so I believe the main points at which the uh uh public the the public
specifically could uh engage with the um first the concept and then the uh ordinance um because I want to be very specific with that. This is the first time that the application that this the full
application is before the public. Um be what we had before was the concept plan uh upon which the ordinance was based. Um the concept plan was incorporated into the fourth round uh
housing element and fair share plan. There was a public pro uh uh uh public uh comment uh uh on the plan itself including all of the uh sites uh with it contained within it. Then there was the
ordinance itself uh that was brought to uh council introduced um brought before this board for consistency review and then back before the council uh for a second reading and the actual hearing of that ordinance. the concept plan. I'm just
asking a dumb question just to be clear. The concept plan was brought to the planning board and approved by us for consistency with the master plan. >> No. So, so the the concept plan um so I I should be clear. So, the concept plan
was used as the basis for the ordinance. The concept plan was included as an appendix to the fourth round housing element and fair share plan uh to show an overall schematic of what the uh of the idea uh
for what the site would um uh would have. Uh the ordinance itself uh is what was brought before the planning board for the consistency review uh when the council introduced it which I believe was back in uh September uh of last
year. >> Um but I just to be super clear Nat council did not adopt the fair share element of the master plan the housing element. This body is actually the body that
formally took the action to adopt that. But but >> right and so we and and this concept plan was I'm sorry I'm interrupting somebody. >> No me. Um but David uh under the applicable rules the the governing body
endorses the fair share. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> But it it's a it's a it's a board product of the planning board. I guess what I'm trying to I guess what I'm trying to get clarity on uh for both
ourselves and for the public who's been testifying is just sort of what aspects of this are have been established and what parts are we really trying to engage with now. C >> could I comment on that?
>> Yes. This is now before the planning board obviously for site plan approval and the normal rules apply. Um the board um basically has to review the the site plan uh application visav all the
pertinent standards which are not only bulk standards but other standards as well um and make a judgment as to whether it complies. If it doesn't and compliance can be affected by conditions, it imposes conditions. Um
but it it's not that the um the board is in the position where got to approve this. um as is the board has the usual powers it does when reviewing a site plan recognizing of course that is a it
is a fourth round plan and there's affordable housing units at stake and and the board boards typically in such a circumstance kind of gives special deference to the applicant. Nevertheless, the board can look at all all the issues that have been raised in
the reports that may be raised by the public uh and that you raise yourselves. So, it's the the board is not constrained. And um without disagreeing with any of that, of course, I would also note that it's been pointed out to the board that
the plan complies with the ordinance um and the applicant is not looking for waiverss or variances. Um and so if the board finds there are certain aspects of this that raise
concerns related to public health or safety um or that you know in other ways are not consistent with the spirit of the uh ordinance or master plan then
of course we can raise those concerns and ask for um you know changes to be made. But the the bones of this in terms of the numbers of dwellings, the numbers of um affordable versus market rate, um
the redevelopment of the site, um the protections of the um you know, areas that are under conservation easement. All of that is in the um fourth round plan that we saw including the concept plan for this site
and approved last year. >> Yeah. I mean and certainly as the zoning officer indicated um it's in compliance and that would be really with the bulk standards but there are there are other standards as well. There's a uh
affordable housing regulations that there's an ordinance that Princeton has adopted that's 50 pages long. >> Um >> I also just want to say um that the staff reports are super helpful in identifying the sorts of things that we
should be deliberating on. >> You know they they raised dozens of issues which are exactly the ones we should be focused on. >> Absolutely. Um, Dan Brailski and or Nat, does that
answer your question? I hope so. Okay, Dander Ramilski and then Owen O'Donnell. >> Thank you. This Dan Doilski. I had two questions with based upon the engineering testimony. Uh, the first question relates to the new median
island in Thanet Circle. And I guess the question is, is Thanet Circle a public or a private street and what's driving the need for that median island? Uh it doesn't doesn't extend all the way to
your drives. Um, so it suggests that it's it's greater than just your development, but it it seems to me that you must already the units on there must already exceed the average daily trips
in the ADA or and not the ADA, the um um you know what I mean. I forget what >> RSIS. >> Yes, thank you. RSIS. So, and and what really triggers to me is that having a three- foot wide grass strip is not the easiest thing to
maintain. So, if it's a public street, I'm not sure it's something the town really would relish taking on. And it's not that it's huge. And is it really needed is the question. >> His hand went up quickly. So, let me
turn first to Jim Purcell. >> Yeah, let me let me explain that. Um when Thanet Circle was developed with the Avalon project and the Princeton Senior Living um which was called Pearl
at the time, um the Thanet Circle, which was at the time called Thanet Road, um was um a mixeduse uh roadway. um by converting this office
park to a fully residential community. This now becomes a residential street that must meet RSIS. And this um separation of entrances so that we have
the ability for emergency services to be able to have two exits in case one of them is blocked. um is and that's the purpose of the uh the separation from RSIs
um became an issue and this median is something that was directed by us during the concept review. Um and the the idea is that no long no more than 700
linear feet of a roadway can uh end in a culde-sac. And um so they've complied with our um requirement and the RSIS requirement by providing this median and yes it will
become a public asset and we will have to maintain it. Gotcha. All right. That that that answers that question. Thank you. The second question relates to the walkway that occurs between uh building
E and building D. uh or let me see. Yeah, building E and D across the bridge basically. Um and as I'm looking at it here with the presentation where the plan's all put together, it strikes me that the walk kind of goes from the
front door of a building D unit to the front door of a building F unit. Whereas maybe that walkway is really intended to serve the entire community and might be better routed uh to go kind of from the courtyard to the right of building D uh
to the center of building E and F and also to the right of building E uh to serve or kind of >> direct pedestrians to through the community and not from a front door to a front door. And I'm wondering if that's
there's flexibility to kind of look at that and say what's the best route for that walkway. >> So there is some flexibility but it's minimal. We have to you're getting close to the conservation easement um within this area and we cannot expand the
footprint or or change um where the existing disturbance is through that conservation easement once we are the outside of it which is the lighter shaded areas. Um, we certainly have a little bit of of flexibility to uh meander that sidewalk. Um, so we can certainly certainly take a closer look at that. I I see where you're coming
from. That looks like the sidewalk's going right to the front door. If we could shift it a bit to avoid going right to the front door of of specific units, we'll certainly look into to doing that. So, that's a good one. >> Yeah. So, okay. I was looking for something where it would kind of seem like if you're in building B and walking
over to in between that it may make more sense to have it routed from kind of common space to common space rather than door to door. >> Yep. Makes sense. >> And it feels like you could do that by just putting some curves in.
>> That's all with a V, not a B, right? >> That's all the questions I have right now. >> Thank you. >> Um, thanks Dan. Um, Nathan and then Jim. >> Yeah, I know. I I know uh Owen is in front of me, but I just wanted to piggy back off.
>> Sorry. >> I thought Owen's hand went down or Oh, no. There it is. Sorry, Nathan. I'm gonna take Owen first. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> His hand up a while. Sorry, Owen. First of all, to Dan's point that he just
made, uh I think that it would also help with the handicapped uh parking for anybody who's going from the handicapped spots to those uh uh more front-facing buildings if we could move that uh walkway a little bit. Um I also want to
touch on uh Nat's question as well. Uh maybe this is a similar question, maybe this is totally different, but has there been any interaction with the uh local residents, the ones on Tune Road and the
uh at Governor's Lane uh regarding the plans? >> Not to my knowledge. >> No. Okay. We find that things usually go a lot smoother when uh developers bring in the uh the neighbors uh and get their
uh input on on at an early stage. Uh but you know so be that as it is. >> Thanks for asking that question Owen. Thank you um Nathan and then Jim. >> Right. Yeah. So, I just wanted to I mean
I have several questions, but uh I guess where I wanted to start is uh based on um Dan Doberolski's uh previous comment about the um the the pedestrian way. um because there's no uh pedestrian
route. The the the bridge, there's a vehicle bridge, there's a pedestrian bridge, and it sounds like the idea is that those two are going to be uh that pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic are intended to be separate between those two. Um
the so this this really becomes a big concern then about making sure that you know if people are moving especially to that playground in the back um because the easier access point would be across that vehicular bridge for at least the
people in uh A what are those A and B >> and B >> buildings A and B. Um, so really having some kind of wayfinding, you know, I I guess and I think this goes to the question that was brought up in the engineering and zoning report as well
about pedestrian and uh and and bicycle traffic uh as well. Um, you know, I'm not not sure what the full solution is, but that that does seem to be a concern and and making sure
that the wayfinding across that pedestrian path and getting to that uh pedestrian path is going to be uh it's going to be important. Um, and I don't know, Jim, if you had a similar comment or uh if it was something completely unrelated, but uh
that was that was an official thought based on uh the conversation, the discussion that was just uh just had. >> Thanks, Nathan. Jim. Yeah, I I don't want to testify for the uh the applicant, but uh given that this is a
uh residential development that is not going to see any through traffic, it it really wasn't a concern of mine that, you know, residents from A and B would find their way to the playground um in the most efficient route, but maybe the applicant should should
address that. Um my my biggest concern and Dan you had you didn't address it as fully as I had hoped is that the um ADA compliant spaces um are not linked
to those ADA units particularly the affordable ADA compliant units. Um, my concern is that residents in the affordable units that are ADA accessible
have a very long route if they're going to park a car. And uh I would really like to see some discussion about placing the ADA accessible parking
spaces in proximity to the residences and not the the playground. Um I don't I don't understand why they're close to the playground in the first place. um is the playground the ADA ADA accessible
um element of this entire development. I would think that the units that are ADA u accessible should have ADA parking spaces in close proximity to those units. And I just don't see that.
This is not uh uh this is not in to me in accordance with the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. So, I'd like to see that. Plus, um there are no ADA spaces on the uh other side of the are there ADA spaces on the other side
of the stream? >> There is not. And >> there are no accessible ADA spaces for visitors. If I was a visitor with a with a handicap, where would I park in order to visit people in units A, B, C, and D?
>> So, I'll attempt to address that. So, first from the the accessible um affordable unit, um based upon the number of affordable units we have, only one is required to be ADA accessible. that ADA accessible COA unit does have a
garage space and that garage space is actually an oversized uh garage space. So you have full ADA accessibility for that that COA unit that's ADA accessible. Our thinking for placing it by the the playground is we figured this was the most public space associated um
with the the community that we're proposing. Um, second of which, looking on this side, there's actually a step. Um, >> can I can I interrupt you a second because there it was not clear. That was something that I don't think we've put in any of the memos unless it was in
Nathan's memo. Is this playground proposed to be accessible to the general public or is it only exclusive to this development? Um, I would have to defer that to the applicant or our
>> It's accessible just to Sorry to interrupt. It's accessible just to this development. >> So So why so so the the idea that ADA accessible parking spaces at this? I don't I don't understand why anyone who
lives in this development would be driving to the playground and need the ad accessible spaces. I'm just very concerned about the ADA accessible spaces not >> to to make the
>> not being at the most accessible route to the units that they're going to serve. >> Understood. And with that said, I'm more than happy to relocate one or or two to be, you know, maybe over this bank of seven. Might need some additional concrete work to put some ramping in
because we do have a step up on this side of the sidewalk. this is the accessible route uh for building I uh but certainly take a look at that. Our opinion again was just that we figured that this would be the most fastly used community space for this specific community which is why we want to make
those the accessible locations. We can find a home for one of them both together or or separate the two of them. Um the reason we kept them on this side of the development versus the one in the front is because again all of these units have two tandem spaces. So, if
you're in the need of an accessible parking space, even if you have a visitor that you coming over that you know is somebody in need that might need an accessible parking space, I think you would be willing to share your parking space in your unit with that person that's coming over. You can go into your garage and um you know, relocate your
car to one of the the visitor spaces in the frontage, which is why we wanted to to locate them in the back because that's where you have the def deficit of parking spaces or or I'm sorry, garage units. Um and that was the community space. But happy to work with you to locate either one of them or both of them to a different spot. We can place
them over here. Have direct access to these buildings. I'm happy to do that. >> Can can I can I continue on this this thread a little bit? >> Um you meet the requirement for the number of units, a number of accessible spaces.
it would be beneficial if you would exceed that and include at least one accessible space on the other side. Um, for from the spirit of of the whole I if if I again if if I'm in need of an
accessible space and I'm visiting somebody in building C, why shouldn't there be an accessible space for me down there? You're you're essentially saying that if I'm a visitor who has a handicap, I have to drive up the road,
park at the playground, and then figure out some way to get to building C to visit somebody that I'm visiting. Th this is about visitor parking. It's not about it. It's about both. It's about having accessible spaces for accessible
units, but also having accessible spaces for visitors and and this doesn't meet that requirement as far as I'm concerned. >> Understood. I mean, we can certainly take a look. I mean, truth be told,
we're tight on space. We're up against u our conservation easements in the front. We're really maxed out on the developable space, but maybe we could shift some things around it and find uh the home for one more space while not sacrificing any of the other visitor spaces that are located in the front.
>> Sure, there's a way we could do it. We can get creative. If that'll address your need, we can we can get creative. >> For for what it's worth, I I strongly agree with Mr. Purcell and I think that um you know, you have more spaces than are required. So,
it's a it's a it's a it's an issue that's fixable. Um, Linda Schwimmer and then David Cohen. >> Uh, yes. I just I had a couple questions and a comment. Um, first of all, I was
wondering, um, in the beginning when you were talking about the entrance and widening both sides and it was going to be in, uh, two-way traffic, is there a plan for a bike lane there or is that just for cars and it would be shared
road >> for the entrance from that turquoise? >> Uh, the entrance onto um, uh, Tur. >> Okay. from you're saying that where we have our boulevard style. >> So
>> circle already is a bike boulevard. Um there is shared there shar along the road. Um and it is intended to be a bike boulevard and that would stay stay the same. So even with the addition of that island uh it doesn't change the ability for the the roads to essentially be
shared by by bike traffic. >> Okay. But nothing not like a dedicated >> not a site dedicated. Okay. just okay. Um I I as I was reading through
everything uh uh in preparation, there was a laundry list of items that um the staff recommended that we um require be um explicitly um promised or or or
stated that that would be included um should we uh move forward to recommend this to the um council. And I don't remember what they all were, but there was a lot of them and I remember agreeing with all of them. So,
um I don't want to ask all of them or or list all of them, but I think you know in this discussion tonight, um it would be good to know if there are things that you explicitly agree to or if there were any listed items that you absolutely do
not agree to or if you agree to all of them, if we could just put those into the record that there's agreement with everything in the township's memo um that you're going to do or whatever the process for that would be. But I did see a lot of what I thought were important
um requirements listed in there. >> And then I just >> I just Oh, go ahead. >> I um first of all really good thing to ask for what you know what of all of these
things do you not agree to do? because that's those are really important things and they end up um affecting the resolution and conditions etc. Um but I do want to make clear that um we're not recommending our action that we will
take tonight or at a future meeting if we don't finish tonight uh will be um um action on a preliminary and final major site plan. We don't we're not recommending recommending anything to
council from here. This is our approval um to make or not with conditions or not. You know, it's this this is we're the deciders. >> Got it. Okay. So then I guess
>> yeah, going back to the comment of what on the list will you agree to or not agree to? And related to that, I I also wanted to go back to the um what um Mr. Purcell was just asking about the um the
parking and there was a mention um that you made about that there's only one um uh accessible uh based on the number of spaces there's only one um handicap spot for the
affordable housing and >> one affordable COA unit >> right um >> or I'm sorry except >> and I guess I just wanted to press on that a little bit because given that there's um
priorities in the lowincome housing laws for people with disabilities. I wonder if that's good enough for really the people that are going to be moving into potentially living here and thinking about just as we're thinking
about the accessibility and use of the building that it's not really a just a population thing. It's a it's a special population thing to be thinking about use and need and accessibility. So, I'll preface that by saying the one
unit that I'm I'm speaking to is is technically a van accessible unit. So, meaning that somebody with a handicap van where you actually have the lift that comes out of the side, that's that unit that is that is, you know, fully van accessible. The other units, especially the ground floor ones, are
still accessible units. They're they're flush to the grade. You don't have those changes in elevation. Wheelchairs are still able to get in and out of that. They just didn't have the van accessible parking space. the unit themselves are accessible and uh I'm sure as far as the all the co- obligations that's way over my head you'll probably hear a ton of
that from the uh from the architect I could detail that significantly better than I'd be able to. >> So I'm going to interrupt quickly because that is what I was asking you Dan and I and I apologize it wasn't an engineering question but
um we don't have a really good handle on which of the units are ADA accessible. Um, you testified to which ones actually have an accessible um, garage. Um, I we're I'm concerned
about the ones that don't have interior parking spaces that have to rely on surface parking that may or may not be accessible. And I think that is uh, something that we'll hear from the architect. And just to remind everybody,
we're we're quizzing um the engineer on the site plan um with questions that may be answered in further testimony. So >> um yeah. um and and after all of the testimony
and the the Q&A and public comment, the um or maybe before then at at some point, back to Linda's first question, we would like to hear from the applicant which of the suggestions um made in the
professionals memos uh you um decline to uh or would make an argument against accepting Mr. Cohen. >> Yeah. I uh wanted to ask one more
question to help us fully understand the accessibility issues here, which is will the site be essentially fully accessible? And when I say that, I mean, will the units
um at the front of the site be able to get to the playground at the rear of the site, you know, or will the slopes of the road? I based it based on the grade changes that Daniel was talking about. I think that
um people who live in the front buildings may have to drive to the playground uh to to um to get there because it may not be accessible to get there by using the roadways or the the
pedestrian pathways. Um, so that would in my mind would inform whether having at least one accessible parking space by the playground makes sense or not. So >> the the site uh does have fully
compliant um handicap accessible pathways throughout the entire site and that is a ADA requirement at the national webill. There is accessible route to the public right away all the way to the back of the site. Y >> you can get from any point on the site to any other point on the site.
>> Yes, sir. >> In a in a wheelchair. >> Yes, sir. >> Thanks. >> And if I may um jump in for a second, just in response to um uh the question was raised by by by um Miss Schimemer as
to when do we go through these lists? What we usually do when we get or often do when we get to to our professionals is we'll have the professional not only comment on the the all the testimony and that it's heard in the plans etc. but go
through its own report and tell us what items in the report it's recommending be adopted as conditions and at that point as it go through one by one we ask the applicant whether it agrees or not if it doesn't agree it doesn't have to agree but it might be that it doesn't agree
explains why and we we drop that it might be that it agrees fine it might be that it doesn't agree but we think we should do it anyway but that's what we we usually do we get that interaction um when we get to all our professionals and they're reviewing their own reports.
>> Okay. >> Um I have a couple of questions. Um first related to the unnamed tributary um goes right through the middle of the site. um on the north side of the
um roadway bridge. Um that tributary is um really really heavily vegetated with um yellow iris. Really heavily such that if
we had, you know, a flooding event, it might actually it would definitely slow down the water, which would be great. it might actually form almost a dam. Um, so I just wanted to flag that
because um, you know, when you're working with DP and on the um, buffer areas and stuff, it it may be wise to to remove at least some of that um,
uh, yellow iris that's in the um, in the stream bed. And on the downhill or south side of the roadway in the same tributary stream bed, there is fragmitees
and uh other invasive um stuff along the stream bank. That's fragmitees was the most concerning to me. So um you know that that uh as you are
planning for how to um you know make that uh buffer area work better. Those things need to be taken into account. And is that something that you're going to do
with DP or what? How does that work? So, uh, coincidentally enough, one of the easements that follows along this tributary is a township, um, or a
municipal, uh, stream cleaning easement. So, it actually gives the municipality the right to even access the site and and clean it. From a D's perspective, that is a general permit. Um, we can apply for general maintenance and stream cleaning. Um, and honestly, I wouldn't
be surprised if they make that request. we will be submitting for them for general permits to reestablish the existing um repairarian zone that was impacted by the previous development. So, we are restoring the green space
with natural um and uh and um native plantings and when they go out to the site to visit it as they always do with any application, >> I wouldn't be surprised if they identify the same thing that you did and uh request that that stream be cleaned out. Um, and we can absolutely investigate
that from from our end as as well. That that's easy enough. And I think that would uh help the aesthetics of the site. Uh, make it look a little better for the for the u residents. Uh, gets rid of some of the invasive species and certainly helps the flow with the stream. Um, and doesn't inhibit the
storm water flow. So, it's a good idea. Um, and the the basin that you're the the big basin that you're retrofitting to become a bio retention basin. Um, that, as I'm sure you know, was already got a ton of
vegetation in it. I thought I was going to see a, you know, a mode thing with a lowflow channel, but that is not what's what's there. So, I saw in the plan that you're adding trees. I assume you're leaving in place the trees that are already in that
basin. Is that correct? >> Most likely we won't be able to is this basin is going to be completely revamped. We have to rip up the bottom. >> Oh, okay. >> We have to install um under drains, but it's going to look a lot better than it does today. We'll put native plantings in there, wet sight tolerant that have
the ability to withstand the water uh and that will thrive uh in that environment. Uh it's not going to be your typical sand bother bottom infiltration basin that you might see. So, it's not going to be, you know, like one of those ugly basins on the side of the parkway. This will be a landscaped area um with an additional function of
storm water management. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think it looks terrible today. I mean, there's there's a couple of spots where there's standing water, but um which I found surprising even after that
silly little drizzling that we had that was supposed to be rain. But um but the you know there's cattails in there and you know it's not it's not a terrible mess. And if if you don't need to take take
out you know one of the bigger trees. I think there's a river birch that's of considerable size on the edge of it that maybe could be saved. I don't know. >> Yep. We're so happy to work with arborist and our landscape architect to see maybe there's a way we can work around those existing mature trees um to
maintain them. So, it's certainly something worth investigating. >> Okay. And I did I had a concern as was flagged in Mr. Doberilsk's note um his memo about um
uh substituting native species for some of the landscaping that's non-native. And um I I guess um you know when we get to that point um when we've had a lot more testimony
um I think it'll be a good idea to discuss whether or not we ask you to come to the landscape committee rather than try to iron out every last detail about landscape um you know before a vote is taken. But
>> understood. Uh, so are there other questions for Mr. Senol? Uh, Nathan. Yeah, I'll be I'll I'll be quick. Uh, I just want to get clarification. Uh, I believe it was uh testified to that each of the affordable
units that do not have their own garages, they will be provided a designated uh parking space. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. And where are those going to be located? Um, most likely we'll put a handful of them um over in this area and then the other over in this area or up
here. So, they'll be the closest spaces to those affordable units. We're not going to throw them, you know, somewhere far away. We're not going to put them all the way up here or anything like that. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, actually, one other quick thing, and maybe this is an architecture question.
Were you done, Nathan? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. Oh, >> no. Yes. Yes, I was done. >> Okay. Um, I'm curious about um the placement of all of the affordable units in two buildings
>> and all of the market rate in the other buildings and why there isn't more of, you know, mix it up kind of approach. And also, um I wonder whether or not the the um open
area between um if I get close enough to the screen to actually see that your cursor was just there >> between okay between building um one or I I'm
sorry building I and buildings H and G whether that can be used as a, you know, seating and meeting area rather than what looks like a paved area in between buildings H and G. Do you see what I
mean? To have more of a community connection between between and among those three buildings. >> Yep. So, we just saw the the center of these two buildings as a good spot for a seating area because you get some decent
shade in there. Um, and and growing, you know, larger trees might be a little difficult in between that the tighter alleyway. And then in addition, we are trying to comply with the ordinance request of wherever you have these front entrances of two buildings facing one
another, they need to be um separated by a courtyard um with a lot of uh green space. And specifically from the code, it reads that courtyards shall be predominantly pvious and liberally liberally landscaped um and shall be
designated with walking paths to connect the entrances to residents in the neighborhood. So because of that, I think we're trying to avoid adding more impervious surface and just using it as your main walkways and then trying to make it as green as we could. Um that's why we avoid putting seating and a large
plaza area between the two front-facing buildings. Um, do you do you envision seating uh around the periphery for people who want to just sit and look into the woods or >> uh we did provide some seating
especially along the the tributary. Um these are all benches. Same thing on the other side. So they're able to to face the re uh rellandscaped natural um drainage area. Um there's some benches that are uh near the
playground area. Um and then we have the seating areas, two of them, one of which next to D and then all the way down near that circle. Um which are this one especially is kind of tucked away in a nice wooded area. So we tried to provide it in areas that are as scenic as we
could for the site um and utilize that natural area for the uneven tributary in the site center. >> Okay. Um, Councilman Cohen and then Jack Taylor. >> Yeah, I just wanted to offer it's really
uh an answer to your question about the clustering of the affordable units. Yeah, >> the difficulty is that with the different all the different bedroom count distributions that are required for the affordable units, you end up
having unit types that don't fit naturally into a stack town home uh repetitive arrangement. And so intermixing the affordable units in with the market
rate units in a project of this type is difficult. Um so that's why the affordable units are in their own buildings and you know I was involved working with Tol to come up with the concept plan for here. We felt like
because these, you know, they're not hall internal hallways like a conventional apartment building where you would expect residents to interact with each other. Really, this outdoor space, this green space between building
I and buildings G and H, that's that's the hallway. That's the public space where people will be circulating to their units. And so we felt that this arrangement actually would give a lot of opportunity for the residents, the
affordable units to um socialize with members of the with residents, the market rate units. I'm just sort of sharing that uh insight from our our thought process as we worked
with tool on the layout. >> Thank you. Appreciate that, Jack. And then Claudia >> this this subject David is is one which concerns me as well. On the one hand I
understand the practical implications. That's that's common sense here to four. It's been my understanding that wherever possible we would try to minimize the segregation of affordables
for obvious purposes. If there's any way we can find financially, comfortably, practically a way to maintain that policy, it seems to me from a social point of view, it's the right thing to
do. And so I understand G&H, but I would prefer it to be otherwise. I wish it were otherwise. >> Yeah. >> Excuse me. Can Can I interject here? I >> go ahead, Alvin.
>> Yeah, let me um I we're going to have I think a whole section on the affordable housing the placement whether whether um um toll is going to accept the recommendations that
were in the staff reports. >> So I guess what I'm So what I'm guess what I'm asking is >> can we put off because I have a few questions too. Can we put that off until we all this discussion off about the affordables until we actually get there
and get some testimony? >> Okay. And is that you expect will be um after we hear from the architect? >> I guess I'm asking that of um Mr. Tar. >> The architect the architect is going to show you the interiors which are unique.
the stacked town home arrangement is complicated and and we've already had questions about where you put the bicycle in the affordable hallway. Um then uh the planner is an expert in
affordable housing and will answer a number of the questions the more mathematical or okay theoretical questions. >> Okay. Um good. That that makes a lot of sense to me. I um I think that is a good
is a good idea. We won't we'll just put a pin in that. Um, uh, Claudia, >> yeah, I think I was going to say something along the lines of what Alvin said because I think we've got some more experts that are going to be testifying
on various questions that we're jumping ahead on. And I wonder if we should hold our questions until after we've heard more testimony because I have a number of questions also and I don't know if the applicant is going to be addressing them or not, but if they do then maybe
we should wait and then see what hasn't been addressed. >> Okay. Um and that sounds uh like a good idea to me, Mr. Char. I mean, I think we're we've I pretty much exhausted the
questions that we would be asking of the engineer. Um, anyway, >> very good. >> Um, who's up next? >> Corey Chase is is next. And if he could be sworn >> um
>> Mr. Muller, you there? Yeah. Okay. >> Here, but I don't see him. >> I'm right here, Mr. Muller. >> Oh, okay. Okay, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> I do. >> So, want to affirm. State your full name. Spell your last name. >> Certainly. It's Corey. C O R E Y. Last
name is Chase. C H A S E. Principal with the firm Dynamic Traffic located at 245 Main Street in Chester, New Jersey. >> Corey, you're a professional engineer licensed in New Jersey. >> That's correct. And I I previously
appeared before the municipality on the Avalon Bay application, the Pearl application, and I actually also worked on the Alice as well. >> A threa. >> Yeah. Got them all. >> So again, uh I believe those particular jobs would qualify him to be an expert
for this job. >> Um we accept your qualific qualifications. Um Mr. Chase, how how long do you expect your testimony to last? I want to be mindful of the time. It's 10:25. I think it's completely clear we're not going to
finish everything tonight. And um I just want to have a sense of how long um you expect to speak. >> Certainly, Madam Chair, and just recognizing the hour and just really echoing the comments that uh Mr. Anoske
made at the the onset of the meeting uh specific to traffic impacts. I expect my testimony to be rather brief. uh just briefly review the traffic impact study that was submitted and just echo some of the testimony that Mr. Chanel just provided regarding site access and circulation
and then obviously be available to answer any questions that the board has. Okay. And good evening everyone and my testimony is mainly going to focus on slide eight uh which is the overall site plan rendering uh that Mr. Chanel just testified to. Uh it shows the overall site access and circulation for the
residential property. Oh, >> excuse me. Chris, do you want to do you want to qualify um Mr. Chase? >> We did. We did. >> Oh, okay. Just >> You mean that he testifases? >> He's testified before respect to all of
the other multiple dwellings in the vicinity. All >> in the direct vicinity of this site, uh licensed professional engineer of the state of New Jersey licenses still in good standing. and he he's being offered as as an expert in what? >> Traffic traffic >> traffic engineering.
>> Okay. >> And thanks. Good evening everyone, Madam Chair, members of the board. It's great to see everyone again. And again, uh my testimony be focusing on slide eight, which is the overall site plan rendering. It's the same slide that Mr. Chanel just provided the majority of his testimony on. As Mr. Commission
indicated primary access to the proposed residential development will be off of Fanet Circle. Uh the access points will be located largely in the same location as the access points for the existing office building. Um we did provide a traffic impact study which was previously submitted to the municip
municipality was dated October 31st 31st 2025. um that did do a pre and postdevelopment analysis uh at the Thanet Circle intersection with Terune Road uh to analyze the overall traffic impacts of the redevelopment of the subject property. Uh notwithstanding the fact
that the site was previously occupied by an office building understanding that it's currently vacant, uh we didn't take any credit for the traffic that could potentially be generated by that former office building. Uh but utilizing data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the 12th edition of the trip generation manual
which is the current edition of the proposed residential development is projected to generate a maximum of only 48 trips during the weekday evening peak hour. That's approximately less than one trip per minute during that peak period. Uh just that level of traffic generation in and of itself would not constitute a
significant increase in traffic as defined by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. uh they have a threshold of 100 additional trips during a peak hour is what they termed to be a significant increase in traffic. So we're roughly 50% of that threshold uh to what would be considered a significant increase in traffic. Uh we
did do a pre and post development analysis at the Tune Road intersection with Circle and found that there no degradations in the levels of service um from the the pre and postdevelopment conditions. Uh we also took into consideration uh some additional developments in the
area that have you know been approved but have yet to be constructed. Uh specifically 375 Tune Road and 457 North Harrison Street were also accounted for. So it was a cumulative analysis at this intersection uh still showing that there are no detrimental traffic impacts as a
result of the redevelopment of the subject property. And again, as I mentioned, the actual the former office building uh from an IT trip generation perspective would actually generate more traffic than what the proposed residential development would during those peak conditions. We also took a look at the site access
and circulation. As Mr. Chanel mentioned, there there are dedicated pedestrian sidewalks throughout the entire development circulating the majority of the buildings as well as providing a connection between the eastern and western portions of the development over that pedestrian bridge. uh we are providing high visibility
pedestrian crosswalks at each of the internal roadway intersections. So again providing safe and efficient access for both vehicular vehic vehicles as well as pedestrians uh throughout the entire network. Uh I know there was some discussion in Mr. Burcell's letter as to you know the access to the playground.
Uh you know that was really strategically located along the eastern portion of the development up in the southeast corner of that development. really, you know, it's it's going to be the most low traffic vehicular area of the property. You know, you're only going to have vehicles either visiting or or accessing really building I a
building G that would potentially be circulating in this area. So, very minimum vehicular volume in this area. So, again, providing that that uh playground in this area really limits the pedestrian vehicle interaction that you're going to see in this crossing. Uh as as was mentioned by Mr. Chanel, there
is dedicated pedestrian pathway. So, anyone in buildings A through D would be able to utilize that pedestrian bridge and again that internal pedestrian network uh if they were to choose to access this playground by foot. Um so, you know, we feel that this location uh
given the crossing that's provided will certainly provide a safe access for for both tenants of the facility as well as their children to access this playground area. Um as Mr. Purcell did mention too in the onset of the hearing um circle as part of the Avalon Bay development was
designated a bicycle boulevard. So that was restriped and resigned to indicate with through signage as well as the sheross within the existing roadway that is in fact a bicycle boulevard. So, we will have the ability uh for tenants of this facility to access Thanet Circle
and utilize that bicycle boulevard designation to again attain the rest of the municipality's bicycle network on Tune Road and on Grove Street as well. Um, Madam Chair, that's all I had for direct testimony. Uh, Mr. Carr, be happy to touch on anything you think I may have missed. Um, but I'd open myself up
to any questions that the board may have or its professionals may have. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there questions from board members for Mr. Chase? Um, David Cohen. >> Yeah. In terms of the bicycle
circulation through the development, if uh bicyclist is less confident, doesn't want to ride with the cars in the the travelways, what's the width of your sidewalks? And you know, would they be uh
comfortable for for a bicyclist to ride on the sidewalks through the site? And Mr. Chanel, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sidewalks are 5 feet in width. So if a bicyclist, as you mentioned, Mr. Cohen did feel less comfortable and did not want to utilize the existing travel way, they would be able to utilize the
sidewalks to traverse the site. >> Even better, some of them are six feet. Majority of them, the main ones are six feet. So >> great. Does does that go for the pedest uh the uh pedestrian bridge as well? >> Um yes. Yeah, that bridge is is six
feet. >> Yeah. And is there um ramping uh at the uh if you scroll a little bit further up uh ramping that would allow access uh for cyclists? >> Yep. Yeah, that's fully accessible.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, there are no steps in this pedestrian path uh through the bridge. So that would be accessible for bicyclists as well should they choose to utilize it. >> Uh well with that sharp turn that might be a challenge. And I'm just overall sorry I'm butting in and other people
have their hands raised but there's a lot of sensitivity about people on bicycles and people on foot sharing sidewalks. So if that's the if if it's if it's intended to accommodate both then there there should be signage
somewhere that you know makes everybody aware that that it's permitted >> certainly Madam Chair and I think another alternative would be to apply a similar treatment that we did to Thanet Circle and that this the main east west
aisle that that really leads from you know the the western portion to the eastern portion of the site that could also be striped as a bicycle boulevard. Boulevard and provide shar as well to delineate that bicyclist and vehicles could could share this road. >> That's right. I mean, you don't want to
just squeeze bikes and peds on a tiny and leave all that asphalt just for cars, right? That sounds like a good idea. Thanks. Um Freddy Pearl Mutter and then Jim Purcell. >> Yeah. Um, I didn't notice anywhere here,
and I'm not sure you're the person, you're probably not the person to ask about this, but um, for a dog park, but it also I'm wondering in terms of the traffic where people walk, um, where would you take your I I'm assuming that pets are allowed in this building. Maybe
I should start off with that. Um, but then I wondered where, you know, would would you think about putting a dog park in somewhere and on these pathways, etc. Is that for dogs as well? Yeah, for people with pets as well. I would assume for with pets as well as for cars and
bikes. I mean, they're not that big. >> Uh, to answer your first question, ma'am, you are correct. I'm not the the right witness to ask about dog parks or whether pets would be um allowed to access the facility. Certainly with six and with five and six foot wide sidewalks, you know, those are certainly
sufficient width for a resident to to walk, you know, any pet that they may have. But I would have to defer the question about location of the dog park if one's provided or if pets are allowed in the facility. >> Alex said >> uh yes, pets are allowed. We typically limit um
limit the the amount of pets uh that they have. Uh but pets are allowed. >> Would you put consider putting a dog park in somewhere? >> Um I'm not sure if we have room to do that or space to do that anywhere. um
but can certainly speak to uh our engineer and take another look at the layout. I don't want to say yes or no right now. It's certainly something um we can look into, but I from just looking at the plan right now, I just don't see where we would even have space to uh do that.
>> There's a new dog park in the Alice across Terune that's municipally. Yep. >> Thank you, Chris. Aware of that. Yeah. Uh Jim Purcell and then Owen.
>> Yeah. Um Corey, I have a question about your uh your traffic study and and I not I since we rely on a consultant, I didn't notice whether or not it was included, but one of our concerns has
been the traffic signal uh timing at the Turhune and North Harrison. Um was that included in your analysis that intersection >> and whether or not there was any impact on uh that intersection?
>> That was not Mr. Purcell. Uh our study was limited to the intersection of Thanet Circle and Tune. Uh you know just based on the level of traffic activity for this development being that it's less than one trip a minute during the peak hour. Uh and you obviously have the ability to disperse the traffic in either direction along Turkhune. I
wouldn't expect it to have any resulting impact at the signalized intersection in North Harrison. >> Thank you, >> Owen O'Donnell. >> Thank you. I have questions about u large trucks, specifically emergency vehicles. Uh are turning radiuses
uh a problem with the layout? >> Uh they are not, Mr. Ordon. Uh we did prepare truck circulation plans for both the refuge truck as well as the municipality's largest piece of fire apparatus. Uh those were submitted as part of the site plan package and they showed that they could adequately
circulate the entire site. >> Great. And and the uh the garbage trucks was was my other concern about that. So thank you very much for answering that. That's all. Um, when you're
looking at traffic impact, um, I think I know the answer to this, but could you address the question of, um, of whether any applicant uh, looks at cumulative traffic impact
of, you know, there there have been several um, sizable projects in the immediate vicinity and um, you I expect folks nearby are are concerned not just about um the impact of this
um but the traffic impact cumulatively. Can you speak to that at all or >> Yes, certainly Miss Wilson. Um and that's a great question and we do we do look at this as a cumulative impact. Um, you know, we did do updated traffic counts at Thanet Circle, Interhun Road,
just recognizing the the development that's gone on since we did the studies for Avalon Bay and for Pearl and even the Alice. Um, so, you know, when we did those developments, uh, you know, a lot of things were under construction at that time. Um, so we had a lot more
developments that we were including that were approved but not yet constructed. In this study, we had 375 Dhune Road that we included, which is the uh the 30 market rate and affordable town home development. We also had 457 North Harrison Street, uh which is that the
fivetory development. I think it's 191 units in totality. Um so we included both of those developments in the background traffic. So we did, you know, we took the existing traffic volumes, which is what's currently on the road today, and then we added in the traffic associated with those two developments that are approved but not yet fully
constructed. um in the background traffic and then supplemented our traffic on top of that to to get an overall cumulative analysis of the impacts on the adjacent roadway network. >> Good. That's good to know. Thank you,
Mr. PCEL. >> He for your hand is still forgot to take his hand out again. >> Sorry. That's all right. >> You've got to upgrade your Zoom, Jim. Mine lowers my hand automatically.
>> I don't know how to do that. I'll have I'll have to get your uh your input there, David. >> Okay. >> Well, one of these days you'll try to join a meeting and it won't let you because it will insist that you update and then you'll have that feature and
you'll be late to your meeting. >> And and I'm using I'm using my personal uh laptop tonight so maybe it has something to do with it. Uh, other questions for Mr. Chase.
Okay. Um, who's next? Mr. Tar. >> Uh, our architect is next. I I do think he's going to take a while, >> so we could we we've got 20 minutes. We could start and and
finish up next time. >> Alex, what would you have me do? Um, I would hate to let the let the time go by without using it. Uh, do we have a sense of when the next meeting would be by chance?
>> We do. We just >> um >> Nathan Nathan >> based on the agenda for the 28th. >> Yes. So there we we do have one application on for the 28th. um you know
so um I think it's possible to schedule uh this for the 28th as well. Um you know it's always you never know how long uh uh an application is going to last even one that looks like it should be short can take long but we can definitely um I think schedule it for
the 28th. >> Uh this let me jump in here because I have a schedule in front of me. Um we're wide open on June 4th, June 18th, July 2nd and July 16th. We have one other thing, but um on those four dates, we're mostly wide open from applications. Um
the 28th, like Nathan said, we do have an application. I cannot handicap. You know, if you would then have 1 hour for this after or 3 hours and end up back on June 4th anyway. Um so if you're a gambling man, Mr. Tar, uh you may want to go with the 28th. But if you want the
certainty of a full night, you may want to go with June 4th. >> That's entirely up to Alex who's >> um Yeah. Thank Thank you, Chris. Well, we only have 20 minutes left and I think it would be beneficial to everyone uh just to because the uh there's a lot of question revolving um uh the
architecture. Uh so I think it would be beneficial even if it's an hour that we have at the meeting on the 28th. Uh it would be better than just doing 20 minutes of testimony right now that well everyone may forget by the 28th. So, if we can get on to 28's agenda and hope for the best that we get at least an
hour, hour and a half to get architecture done, um I think we can agree to that. >> Yeah, Madam Chair, I guess we would ask to to take a poll to see how many of our members uh can attend on the 28th.
>> Um, anybody unavailable on the on May 28th? That's a regularly scheduled meeting. It should be on everybody's calendar. Thank you very much. >> I think we're we look to be good with the quorum and um and I agree. I don't
want to hear some I don't want to split architecture testimony into two nights. So I appreciate that. Um >> can we check with our professionals as well? Even though it is a regularly scheduled meeting, it is uh three days
after Memorial Day. Ah yes. So Dan, Jim, Victor, >> I'm available. >> Taylor, I would like to ask the engineering uh
side. I don't believe that Victor would even need to be attending. I think we've heard traffic testimony. Okay. >> Victor, do you see any reason that you would need to attend? I mean, and are you available?
I'm available, but I don't know unless there's any questions from the public or the board that needs me to weigh in on. But based on the testimony, I don't need to be here. >> Well, let's let's propose that you you
uh if you're available, that's good. Joe, um storm water management is going to be critical. >> Yeah, Jim, I can be available on the 28th. >> Okay. Um, and that that's it from my side. >> Okay.
>> I see Dan Dan Doberilski has his camera on as well. >> Yeah, I I am available. >> Good. And you too, Taylor Gribbon. >> Yes, I'm available. >> Okay, good.
Um, so there were a few things that um we we talked about tonight that the you told um indicated and willingness to work with us on. I'm thinking of the ADA
of the uh handicap parking etc. Is that something that could be that people could put their heads together on between now and the next meeting or we do we need to wait until further along in the process? >> Tomorrow. Tomorrow morning. He's he's on it tomorrow morning. He says no worries.
>> Um okay. So that would be good if maybe some of those questions could be put to to rest before to the satisfaction of staff before >> Yeah. It's it's enough time for us to share documents back and forth with staff to get their their comments.
>> Yeah. And and if I can make a a quick suggestion, uh if there could be some kind of response uh to the uh I know there's a lot of them, um but um you know, a response uh memo or or letter uh
laying out agreement with, you know, their recommendations, agreement, uh that sort of thing. >> Yeah, might be a little premature. We we're b we're absolutely going to do that but we're halfway through and there's more stuff to come up so we might be a little early but we'll we'll start that memo as to the things which
have the the site civil uh Chris if I can interrupt for a sec. Uh Nathan I don't know if you uh with all the letters that we had received um I'm almost certain we submitted a response uh to all of those letters if that's what you were um referring to. When did
you uh submit that? >> Uh I have to see the I have to double check. >> So the staff memos came out last Friday. >> Alex, we you know we we were responding we were writing our memos based on um
submissions that were last Monday and we didn't send you the memos until Friday. >> Right. We do have some responses from the professionals memos on prior site plans. There were multiple
submissions to site plans while we were work working together on this. So, >> we don't we haven't seen responses to Nathan's memo or my memo. It's in everybody's It's in everybody's interest that when we finish up, whether it's next time or the time after, we're going
to go through the memos paragraph by paragraph and indicate which ones we modified or would agree with completely. We we do that every time as Jerry knows. >> Okay. Claudia, >> are there schematics of the building
available for us to review? Is that too early? three of the buildings where they were submitted. We Alex, we submitted the interiors and the exteriors as as >> we have in the side views and the front front and back views. >> We're going to show them to you next
month, but we also submitted see some of the buildings, not all the buildings. >> Yeah, I thought there were three that were three. I think >> some of them several of them are the same one to the other. I think there are six different of the 10, there are six
different types. >> Yeah. And not to like get too ahead of ourselves, but just a preview of what you'll hear on the 28th is what basically what we submitted was a typical building and all the only difference you'll see is if there's more units in one building versus the next,
but the facade, the sides would all be the same for them and the fronts would essentially be the same. The only difference was how many modules of those buildings. But um we'll certainly be presenting that hopefully on the 28th. >> Yeah. So I think for the architect to
walk you through that I'd feel more comfortable. >> Yeah. Um Okay. Thank you. So for members of the public of of whom there are 23 um 22
uh we will pick this up again on May 28th. Um thank you for your patience. It's a lot of testimony and quite a bit still to come before we finish with the Q&A uh between board members and staff and
the applicant and and begin to take public comment. Um and um thanks for um u hanging in for these for these hours and hope you can be back on the 28th >> and there will be no
>> Is there anything else that we need to do Mr. Miller to >> and and there'll be no further notice um of the meeting on the 28th. >> No further notice. Okay. >> Please just look for the agenda um on princenj.gov in the municipal calendar
for the Zoom link for that meeting. >> Good. Um so I think that um brings us to an end for this evening. Mr. Cohen, >> I would move to adjourn.
>> Second. All in favor, please say I. I. >> I. >> I. >> Thanks everybody. Thanks very much. We'll see you next time. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Have a good evening. >> Good night.