Good evening and welcome. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Planning Board on Thursday, June 4th, 2026. Pursuant 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 of 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. I should note, however, that the public comment period that um took place for the application that we'll be discussing tonight was concluded at the end of the last
meeting. So um there will not be a public comment section tonight on this um application. Um, Miss Earl, would you call the role, please? >> Mr. Bodinghammer. >> Councilman Cohen
>> here. >> Mayor Frereda. Mr. McGawan >> here. >> Miss Na >> here. >> Mr. O'Donnell >> here. Miss Pearl Mutter >> here.
>> Miss Swimmer. >> Mr. Taylor >> here. >> Miss Wilson Anderson >> here. >> Chair Wilson >> here. >> You have a call. >> Thank you.
Um any announcements from staff? No. [laughter] staff doesn't have any uh planning staff doesn't have any comments. >> Okay, good. >> Announcements, I should say. Sorry. >> That's all right. I I don't have any announcements either. Um okay, so let's
um have our discussion of the conditions associated with um this application of toll NJ1 LLC. This was carried from May 28th last week. This is a preliminary and final major site development approval at 29
Thanet Circle block 5502 lot 5 zone AH-14 and it's file number P2525-712P. So, we heard a lot of testimony the last two meetings um regarding this application and [clears throat] um
concluded uh the discussion and public comment I guess 15 minutes before our hard stop of 11:00. Um in the interim um Mr. Mueller uh as we agreed that night
created a a draft of conditions that were discussed that night and um various comments have been delivered to Mr. foot about that draft. And so, um, uh, I mean, I don't think anything
momentous, but, [laughter] um, but I'll I'll ask, um, uh, Nathan to go ahead and, um, go through the conditions that were discussed
uh, last time and summarized by Mr. Mueller in case Jerry or Mr. Tar do either of you have anything you want to say first for and there's no issue of jurisdiction or anything like that Jerry that you need to
>> No I guess we should just announce we we really don't even have to that jurisdiction was continued to this meeting from the May 28th meeting. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um I should >> since Mr. Char didn't active didn't unmute himself. I assume you have
nothing nothing before we start. Okay, great. Nathan. >> Yeah. Uh I believe Mr. Müller had another comment to make. U Mr. Toar had submitted a set of revisions. There was actually a revised draft, but the it's the original draft that had gone to the
council. The original draft that I did. Um but Chris might [clears throat] interject with um thoughts and and comments he has as time goes on. Okay. >> Yeah. And so, um, sorry.
Uh, all right. So, I guess I'm up. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so just to lay the groundwork for, uh, the uh the work that the uh board is doing. Um, the the way to imagine it is that it's 10:30 at night. We've just heard this for three and a half hours
and we are going through uh the conditions as we normally would. So really what we're doing here is we're looking more or less at the broad strokes of the uh conditions. Um so we're not really unless the meaning of unless a word really changes the
substance of one of the conditions what we're we're not words smithing we're just looking at what is the substance what is the applicant agreeing to uh with these conditions. Um so I just wanted to uh provide that setup as we start to go through. Now what I'll do is
I will go through um as uh Chair Wilson noted there have been comments that have been provided by uh professional staff as well as by the applicants attorneys. Uh I am going to do my best to uh be comprehensive as I go through about what
the requested revisions are. Many of them or at least some of them are going to require some discussion or some decision on the part of the board as well as the applicant to agree to the changes in those uh conditions. So, um, uh, there are there are also
several that I'm going to bring up that are not in the draft, uh, that are requested to be added. There are also a few that have been requested to, uh, be, uh, removed in their entirety. And I'll go through those as well. And again, uh, there there will be an opportunity for discussion and if any of the
professional staff or if, uh, Mr. Tar uh, needs to interject uh, at any point, uh, they are, uh, free to do so. just like with the normal reading of the conditions uh every uh you know every time that we go through uh an application.
So if there are no questions about that I'll go ahead and get started. >> Go ahead. >> All right. Uh so so again I'm this is point by point just as if we do would be doing this at 10:30 at night. Uh so the first condition is uh regarding
>> Could you Nathan could you bring up Cherry's list? uh the we we're going to just do it um verbally as opposed to bringing up the uh uh the list, but uh ultimately, you know, I will defer to the chair to make
that decision. >> I I feel like um I mean, typically, as Nathan pointed out, it if we were doing this in the normal SE session, it would be at the end of a lot of comment and stuff. We don't have a a draft to look at. And it
may be that with one or another we need to. But what I don't want to do is get into the, as Nathan put it, get into the words smithing uh of. So [clears throat] let's see how it goes. And if you um if you feel Mr.
Tar that um you know things are getting confusing or your client is being illerved in some way, then uh speak up. But let's see how it goes with just summarizing verbally. Okay, condition number one, uh, share
markings must be in the center of each lane rather than on the side of the lane. Uh, I didn't receive any comments on this. Um, so if there's no questions or comments from the, uh, the board or the applicant, we can, uh, mark that as agreed to and and move forward.
>> Yep. >> Okay. Condition number two. Uh I'm going to summarize this because there has been a requested change from uh staff. Um essentially this is regarding the ADA accessible uh EV charging station. Um
the the requested change is really just noting that uh at least one EV space must be ADA accessible. Um and uh what what we'll do is we can go um you know we can work the language but essentially
that is the condition that would be uh uh provided. May may I make a suggestion? It to the extent we can actually pin down specific language and I know we don't want to do overro wordsmith but if we can pin down
language it seems to me that would really advance things rather than having it a little more generalized and then we come back again and and go back over it. Um so I would suggest for this that we we put that in. Um,
>> Nathan, Nathan, perhaps just read the language that was written by staff for the for for what we're we're suggesting and see if we get agreement on it. >> That sounds good. >> All right. So, I just need to pull that up.
[clears throat] >> I If you want me to read it. [snorts] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh I am pulling up now. It's up to you Jim if you want to. >> Yeah, let me it it was my comment. Um and
um the comment as written it's we left the first sentence. The DCA requires that an EV charging station must be handicap accessible. Such a space is in addition to spaces that are required to meet ADA compliance. At least one of the
proposed EV spaces must be accessible. That's the extent of the changes to that that we are suggesting. [clears throat] >> Fine with the applicant. >> Good. >> I like it. >> Me too. >> Jim, could you just I'm sorry. Go over
there again. >> You're on mute, Jim. >> Jerry, I'm having a hard time hearing you. I don't know if anybody else is. You're awfully quiet. >> Oh, really? Can Is that better? >> Yeah, a little better. What What did you say? I just >> you want me to repeat what I just said?
>> Yeah, if you if you can, that would be great. >> Okay. The DCA requires that an EV charging station must be handicap accessible. Such a space is in addition to spaces that are required to meet ADA compliance. At least one of the proposed
EV spaces spaces must be accessible. That's the condition. >> Thank you. >> And and Jerry, we do have um the We have a markup. >> We do have a markup um that uh you you know and and so all of this is coming
from uh from that markup. So if it would be uh >> easier we can yeah we can provide that uh we would obviously provide that to uh to you. Um >> that's that's fine. >> Yeah. And and one of the reasons that we're not showing this on the screen is
because we have about three different versions of the document. There are comments from the applicant. There are comments from Nathan. There are comments from me. And there's the original document. [laughter] >> I agree. Yes, Jim.
>> Thanks, Jim. Uh, the other thing to note is that uh obviously as I mentioned uh that uh the markup that again if we need to read it exactly into the record we will. Um but uh that will be provided to um Jerry and
there will be something I didn't mention I failed to mention at the top is that this is still going to go through the same process. Obviously, we want, you know, this is going to be a bit more uh fur it's going to be further along than most applications. Uh the resolutions and findings of fact uh but there's
still going to be the same process of providing the draft resolution and findings of fact to the uh applicants uh attorneys for them to make uh comments for professional staff to make comments. uh and uh you know when when we reconvene with that resolution uh in
hand ready to be uh memorialized uh that will have gone through that same process. >> Good. >> I should have mentioned that at the top. I apologize that I didn't. >> That's okay. And you know, I think given that what just been said, I think kind
of to summarize comments that suggested changes rather than read them verbatim, given what's going to h how the process going to work will be fine. >> Okay. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. Number three. [laughter]
>> All right. Number three. the uh parking spaces designate designated for affordable units shall include signage that each space is reserved for unit blank. Um the only addition that I asked for in the uh again that this is in the markup uh copy as well is just that
these uh be identified on the plans as well that the uh basically the exhibit that was provided uh to staff and board uh prior to the last meeting. uh basically all those changes be shown on the uh site plans that are submitted for
compliance review. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Uh so this is the first uh so there are two um two conditions that uh were not written
up uh that uh we wanted to uh uh to potentially bring up. Um first this is coming from the dynamic engineering uh response letter. uh they'd indicated that all proposed EV uh charging stations uh on the surface parking lot
will be installed during construction as opposed to the uh the phasing uh that is permitted under uh state regulations. >> Um we would simply ask that that a note be added to the plans uh to uh so indicate. >> Go ahead.
>> Okay. And if there's no board comments, I'll continue on. There is there was another thing that was brought up. So, there was a discussion uh last week about the uh charging stations, the uh potential for charging stations interior to the
garages. Uh and the applicant indicated that uh those would be uh installed uh if an uh if a prospective buyer requested them to be installed. um as I guess a potential alternative. Uh one
thing that I believe was uh brought up uh in the PEC memo was that 240 volt uh outlets be installed in the uh uh in the garages. Um and so we would just ask the applicant if that would be acceptable or
uh if uh that uh is not something that they um would uh agree to. My understanding is it's an option and therefore, you know, they wouldn't install it in every garage. They would only install it if somebody wanted an EV
charger, >> right? But that's the EV charger, not the 240 outlet. >> But it's the same thing. They're just trying to get around putting in a charger by putting in a 240 volt. I mean, I I just want to comment that I'm not sure exactly what the timing is
for sale of these units, but the ability to put in a 200 240 volt outlet is probably going to need to happen much earlier during construction, you know,
during basically roughening of the electrical and therefore, you know, If units aren't sold that far in advance, we might be setting things up for a more expensive
um fix. If a if a prospective buyer wants that, >> has told me offline that it's fine. They'll put in 240. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Ready? >> All right. All right. So that that
condition will be added to the uh the list and included in the uh the resolution then both of that that and the last one that I just uh discussed. >> Environmental commissioner is really pleased about that. >> Thank you. Next up. >> All right. Number uh well on the list
it's number four. So I'll just keep that numbering and not try to reorder it uh and confuse everybody uh with the uh the two new additions. So this is number four in the draft uh the draft list. Uh proposed additional bike rack between buildings J and H shall be shown on the plans. Uh I I didn't have any comments
from anybody on that one. >> Nope. >> Good. >> Uh let's see. Number five is regarding the pedestrian ve uh vehicle bridge. Um >> no, the pedestrian bridge, not a vehicle, just the pedestrian bridge.
>> Well, there's uh pedestrian bridge and sorry, there's two there's pedestrian bridge and then the and the vehicle bridge. Two separate bridges. Um the uh condition is just that details with respect to the work will be submitted uh to the land use engineer.
Um we did have uh an additional uh question about whether that could include the bridge reports the structural uh bridge reports um that were conducted. Uh >> the pedestrian bridge is intended to be replaced. So there's no need to give you
a structural report for the old one. >> That this is it. This is re regarding the um vehicle bridge. >> We would like to see the bridge inspection reports. >> There's a concern about the the vehicle bridge that we'd like to allay. We'd at
least like to have records um that it actually is capable of carrying the loads that it's going to be carrying over. >> It's acceptable to toll. >> Okay, good. The bridge inspection reports All right, moving on then to number six. The garages may not be used for storage.
Uh, this is one we did receive a comment on asking if this was really um necessary. Let me just uh set the background on that really quickly. Um, basically the idea is that uh we want the the board wants to make sure and I I believe the HOA would also that uh
people who have garages are not using surface parking spaces. if unnecessarily. Um and one of the things that was discussed was storage [clears throat] in the garages. Um however, um the the comment and the uh and and staff tends
to agree with this or at least planning staff tends to agree with this um is really people should be able to use the garage for um what they uh what they want and it becomes an HOA. Uh presumably the HOA would also be
concerned with making sure that uh people are using the garages uh for vehicle parking uh or rather the surface parking is used as intended. Um so the the request there has been to um remove
that condition or um I would also suggest as an alternative modifying it just to uh make sure that the HOA uh has some uh mechanism uh to ensure that uh uh basically people who
have garages are uh not unnecessarily using uh surface parking. >> My only comment would be that it it it shall not be used for storage which would preclude the use for the cars. You're going to hang your your
>> Yeah, that's a that's a that's good, Chris. >> That's a good way to put it. Yep. >> But even that, I mean, if I'm understanding Nathan correctly, there could be a family who has a two-car garage, but they only have one car and
they want to use the garage for storage that would preclude a second car parking in there, but they're it they're not using the surface parking. They're just they only have one car. I >> If you want to leave it to the HOA, that's fine with us. I
>> I think that makes sense. Right. And that that was ex this was actually my comment that that was exactly the scenario I was envisioning David is that you know you just don't want to tell people what they can and can't put in their garage [laughter]
>> if especially if they have one car in a twocar garage. Of course you're going to use it for your stuff. >> So I just didn't want to say you know that the garage could not be used for storage. So six is >> I think as I think as uh Chris Tar Mr.
Tar um phrased it I think that works. >> Okay. So the condition will be amended to state uh garages may not be Chris. Could you repeat what you had? Uh >> garages may not be used for storage which impedes the uses for cars
>> for the owner or the the unit owner's cars. I mean because >> owner's cars fine. >> Yeah. You could rent it out. [laughter] >> Those kind of spaces are are at a premium in Princeton.
>> You could in fact >> no snow on your car. [laughter] [clears throat] >> All right. Number seven. All >> all elevations and floor plans for all buildings shall be provided during compliance. Uh again, this is another one. There were no uh comments on this.
Um, so if everyone's agreeable, we can, uh, check that off. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. Number eight. Uh, applicant shall work with municipal planning staff to revise the building G and H floor plans and in end unit elevations in a manner set forth herein.
Uh, decision-m uh shall rest with planning staff and applicant shall make such changes as the planning staff has agreed to and has and it has required uh done as part of compliance. Uh and this sort of relates to uh the next two conditions as well.
>> Fine. >> Uh number nine, uh this shall include more windows on the elevation with the gable. Uh one modification I'm uh I would request is that uh more windows um not sure the exact phrasing for it. I
put where appropriate in my notes. um just because I believe it was more than just the gable elevation that uh was discussed in terms of uh of windows. >> It was the ends of the buildings though. The ends of the >> the ends of the buildings. Okay. If that's if that's agreeable to the board, we can make that modification to say the
ends of uh >> I think that's also clear because the gable's going away. So referring to the elevation with the gable as the place where the windows have to go. >> Is it a gable or a shed roof, David? >> It's a shed roof. >> [laughter]
>> That's also a good comment. Yeah. So, >> but but it wasn't that wasn't the only elevation where there were few or no windows. So, we shouldn't refer just to that elevation, but rather to the >> Well, I I think the ends of the buildings is
>> ends of the buildings. >> I think that the ends are the affordable buildings. I mean, it was G&H that were >> I think that that's correct. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I think this is Sorry. Wasn't it um the uh market rate units as well? >> I don't believe so. >> No.
>> No. I think Yeah. And this this these conditions uh specifically refer to the um they're related to number eight uh regarding buildings G and H. Um so and and that was the discussion where uh with the um with buildings G&H was the
uh lack of windows. Um, and >> yeah, the others had had much more window space on all three >> because architect also said some they were supposed to have some windows but the drawings didn't show. >> Right. Right. >> The windows that was in G&H.
>> Okay. I [snorts] I I think the cleanest way to address this is say the end walls and don't you don't need to specify G&H will have more windows where appropriate
you know and that leaves it to the discretion of the developer >> with some input from >> staff that that we've done that before on tall buildings we've worked with staff to go on windows Yeah.
>> Okay. So, more windows were appropriate at the ends or no no mention of the ends. >> It's not so much as the placement of the windows. There might be more. There might be different placements. >> Yeah. It's only an issue at the ends because, you know, for the internal
units, they're maxed out with windows permitted by the floor by the floor floor pan. >> So, it's it's really uh end units All right. And Jerry, did you get what you needed from that? >> Yeah, I think so. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. So, we'll mark that one. >> Yeah. And rather than more windows, I'm going to uh to reflect what what Chris said revised fenestration um on the uh the and incident too
>> increased fenistration. [clears throat] >> Okay, but let's not get into the words I think. Sorry. [laughter] >> No, I think I think that's one instance where we do want to be clear on what it is that the board is asking for. So I don't think that uh you know falls under our uh uh circumscribed
um [laughter] circumcribed part of the uh the evening. Uh all right. So we're good on that one. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Number 10. The gable on the building uh or rather the shed roof I I should say. Um on the building where it
is proposed shall be eliminated. The roof shall be flat and the two-bedroom unit adjacent to it uh shall be changed to a three-bedroom unit. Um, and on that one, I just wanted to clarify with the board that that is what they uh want to see happen is to have that be converted
into a three-bedroom uh unit. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> That's fine with us. And we're going to change the slide that had it shown as a two-bedroom. >> And Nathan, can you specify which building that was, G or H? >> I believe that is building H.
>> Okay. Oh, it's a >> I would also I would not use the word adjacent because it's really under the I would say the unit impacted by the roof change.
>> Yep. >> David, I had a similar comment in my words smmithing draft of it. >> Uh, all right. So, we're good with that one then? Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Number 11. Exterior materials for the market and affordable rates
shall be the same. Uh both uh Mr. Tar uh and his attorneys and uh myself had a similar comment which was um that uh it should be shall be consistent throughout. Uh by UAC standards um exterior materials for both market rate
and affordable have to be the same. Uh so they are going to be consist. So, uh, that one's going to be modified to, uh, say exterior materials for the market and affordable rates, uh, affordable units shall be consistent throughout. >> And there's a there's a second sentence.
Did that get removed along the way? >> Uh, yes. >> At least that's my modification. Uh, uh, pending board. Uh, >> the sentence the sentence read, "The board understands that market owners can pay for upgraded materials." That's
incorrect as to the exterior. >> Right. >> Right. >> So that that will be removed. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> That will be removed. >> Right. >> I mean the intent of that was to say that market rate
purchasers could pay for upgraded materials and fixtures in the inside of the units. >> Right. I don't know that that's needed, but >> I um >> David, I don't think it's need I think you can >> I misunderstood that comment and I
thought >> an observation. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we will strike the uh that second sentence. >> Thank you. >> All right. We'll mark that as done. Uh number 12. The design changes required
by the planning staff may not change the building footprint but may result in changes to the fenistration and affordable unit type and size. Um I didn't >> Yep. I didn't have any comments on that. So if everybody's good, we can move
forward. All right. Number 13. The affordable unit owners as well as the market unit owner shall be members of the HOA. Um no comment. There were no comments on this one. All right, number 14. The applicant shall execute such affordable housing
deed restrictions as are prepared by the board attorney. Uh we did have a question on this one. Uh staff did. Um usually what we've seen is that uh the deed restrictions are prepared by the applicants professionals uh and then reviewed and approved. So
>> Martina does such a good job. >> Yeah, [laughter] I think it's more efficient coming out of our office. That's where it usually comes from. >> Okay, good. Okay. If Mr. Char, if you're okay with that. >> Oh, I am. >> Okay.
Uh, let's see. Number 15, let's make that. Uh, occupants of the affordable units shall have the same access to the community amenities that the occupants of the market rate units have. There shall be no change for access to the amenities. Uh, there comments on this one. >> Correct. >> No charge.
>> No charge. No charge. Correct. So, I did have a question about this, which is um is access to the amenities predicated on membership in the HOA?
Because if it is, my understanding is that there may be an HOA fee for the residents of the affordable units. However, it must be um within the the overall cap, >> right,
>> on the cost of ownership, >> but to use the playground. I think the testimony was that only it was a private playground for the owners of these buildings, but that all of the owners of all of the buildings, of all of the units, could use the playground at no
cost. >> Okay. So, >> but but I >> again I'm not a I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that it to restrict it to member members of the or to owners
within the uh development, you sort of have to say HOA members. I mean, that's number 13 that the affordable units are members of the HOA, >> right? >> Mhm. >> Right. Do they have do they pay HOA fees?
>> Yes. And at a reduced rate based on their square footage, >> but but >> not solely on their square footage because the testimony we heard was that it has to be within the total >> cost of ownership. Right. >> Yeah. >> But I'm I'm not sure I understand the
question. >> Yeah. The question is that the condition says that the use of the amenities will there will be no charge for the use of the amenities. >> Right. And so I'm not sure what the HOA fee is for,
>> but I would have thought it was for use of common amenities. >> Well, with all the taxes that we pay, you'd be surprised, but the town doesn't do doesn't do snow plowing, so it or landscaping. It's to pay for that stuff. All right.
On number 15, would it be clear to remove that second sentence? There shall be no charge. >> Right. or leave it in. No, no extra charge to use the playground. >> No, I'm not sure if this would work, but no charge beyond the um
>> HOA membership. >> Perfect. >> Yeah, >> as as determined by the administrative officer, >> what administrative office? >> I I >> the HOA administrative officer. >> No, the the municipal administrator, >> the administrative agent agent.
>> All of that is a matter of law though, right? I mean, why given all of that, why do you even need that second sentence? >> Well, I think I think you should have it, but I think we're overthinking it with it. I think it's clear the way it is now. >> Okay. [laughter] Unless David's
>> I think it's confusing the way it is now. But [laughter] >> there's only a playground. But but chair chair Wilson your your point is also correct that um this is governed by uh hack and other
regulations that um they the there cannot be there has to be that access without that additional uh charge. So uh I believe that was Mr. Tar's uh point as well. Um so you know I I think it gets sorted out you know we can add the
additional language. It sounds like uh we did you know Mr. Miller's >> references not to, but you know, >> I think it's fine. So, I I'll let at the end or somewhere beyond HOA >> or no additional charge. Is that >> Does that suffice for you, David? Does that make it? >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Just a reminder, when he gets to the longer document, I'm sure it'll be very clear. >> Now, it went >> Okay. [laughter] >> Okay. All right. 16 >> 16 uh bedroom regulations set forth in
section 2 A and B of the foot memo pages four to five shall apply except that there should be an additional three-bedroom unit instead of the two-bedroom unit as per condition 10. Um I did have a note on this. Um I essentially it's saying the same thing.
Uh but I I think I'd be more comfortable saying the number of units. Um I I'd have it by income level and unit bedroom type shall be reviewed and approved by uh planning staff as opposed to tying it directly to the uh uh the memo. That way we can use you know the memo used uh
hack standards but just to make sure that we're you know we've got everything covered. Uh I know the master plan also or not the master plan the fourth round housing element and fair share plan also specifies from each development how many uh very low low and moderate income
units are >> we we charted that out but we agree. So David, right, I'm sorry. Um, Nathan, the federal regulations, we take out uh set forth that we take out section 2A and B of the foot memo just in UAC. That that's it.
>> We we can do that and we can also work, you know, we can also figure out the language, but essentially it sounds like the applicant is agreeing to uh you know have uh that that those numbers reviewed and approved by uh >> it's statutory and it's in the ordinance. We have to comply. Right.
>> Right. Yeah, >> McGowan. >> Um, well, there there was a reference to this in the staff memos. He mentioned pages four and five, but I think he also wants page six.
Um, >> right. >> That refers to well, you have you have the amenities. May maybe it's all there. But that's that's my thing. That was my one concern. And I think you covered it, but
but you may need part of page six, too. >> Well, I thought we were going to take that out and just put instead of that in set forth in U-Hack, which >> Yep. >> Just it quotes U-Hack. It's just each step, each paragraph quotes you uh hack. So, >> yeah. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. And so I'm fine with like
leaving it like that and then we can on the staff side just review it and make sure that you know it it matches >> that work for you Alvin. >> So are we taking out the qualification at the end starting with except that
>> um I I would prefer keeping that in just to make sure that everything remains. Look >> at the additional threebedroom. There's there's now nine twos instead of 10 twos. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Well, you could do it the I I again you've already specifically spel spelled
it out in the memo. So why not just repeat the language that's that's in the memo >> because he's quoting the state law. >> All right. >> All right. I mean I mean it's it's the member was a little more specific about the number of units and those things but
it look I'm not going to get I'm not getting a long discussion about it but it you know >> I thought the memo you know the staff memo did a good job of spelling out everything that was there was >> no debate here.
>> Okay. So either include the wording or a specific citation to that section of the law. Go. >> Next. >> Uh, number 17. This is one that, uh, we just need to clarify. Uh, unit C in the
type 5A bay of building G and unit in the type 5 bay 5B bay of building H shall have sliding doors rather than hinge doors. Um, this was something that was part of the, uh, planning memo. Uh we did ask that uh you
know there be a uh it wasn't quite a recommendation but uh you know we didn't get to it last week. Um so it really just you know is is the applicant willing to provide sliding doors uh rather than >> I think their response memo said they'll
consider it. What we need to know is is the answer yes or no? [laughter] >> They'll consider it. Well, I there there was no frankly there was no testimony on it and and no discussion of it at the board. It was one of the many references in the memo.
>> Yeah. And toward the end of the meeting, I mean, where there were repeated references to the response memo as being, you know, a guide guideline. And I I don't want to belabor this either. I just thought that if it were >> the applicant is in a position to say
tonight, "Yeah, we'll do that." Or, "No, we don't want to." You know, they they've got hers put it to bed. >> They've got hinge doors in their plan. They've been it's been suggested that sliders would be an alternative. I just think they'll evaluate it. Their plan calls for the hinge doors.
>> So, I mean, is it um So, the condition would say the applicant will consider >> and discuss it with staff at when it's talking about windows. >> Okay. Okay. Fine. >> Not a hill I'm going to die on. I just thought it would be good to to be
specific if we could, but that's fine. Um 18 >> uh demolition shall be limited to work days during hours Princeton permits. There was a there were a couple of comments, one from uh uh the applicant and one from our uh intrepid land use
engineer. Um those were uh in contradiction to each other. So, we just need to uh spell out and and just make sure that everybody's on the same page. Um Jim, I don't know if you wanted to >> Yeah. Um my comment is it's codified in our ordinances. So,
it's it doesn't have to be a condition. It's already a condition on all construction in in Princeton that you only have certain work hours work hours that are going to um cause noise. So, why have it as a condition of this
particular approval? I I'm suggesting we eliminate it alto together. >> Uh I took a different approach. The ordinance says you can start at 7:00 and have to finish at 6:00 on weekdays. The neighbors were concerned about it. I just thought it'd be clearer that
everybody knows when we can work. >> Well, so we allow starting at 7 and concluding at 6:00 p.m. >> Yeah, that's that's our ordinance. Uhhuh. Six days. >> If the applicant wants to reduce the
number of work hours, uh, we don't have any objection to that. >> No, no, no. It's really just to the neighbors and everybody knew what what the hours were. If if it's a shortcut to people calling your office and asking whether it was okay, >> well then the condition should be
demolition shall be limited and demolition and construction shall be limited to weekdays between 7 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. >> and Saturdays from 8 to 6 >> with municipal engineer approval.
>> Fair enough. >> You can't work Saturdays unless you get prior approval. >> Okay. But I just thought it was better to have the hours since the issue came up. >> Okay. We can we can work on on that and get it into the condition as it's specified in our ordinances.
>> Thank you, Chip. >> Right. Very good. Um number 19. Uh I think this is one that we'll have to uh um hopefully not too much at length but um there were some uh questions and and comments about this uh one this is about
the demolition and construction plan. Uh one thing very quickly uh demolition construction management plan was suggested as uh you know had to refer to it. Um I don't think there's any issue with that. Um the the bigger question is
going to be about uh monitoring noise and dust uh and the entire process of monitoring uh the uh demolition construction. So Jim, I don't know if you have any uh anything you want to add or or bring up.
>> Yeah, again there are a couple of things in here that aren't necessary. for for instance the soil erosion sediment control plan approved by the Mercer County soil conservation district um or there shall be a soil and sediment control plan is what's in the thing I
don't that's not necessary it's it's a requirement but we can leave that in um my concern um I I would like to see adding in wording such as adding in check dams turbidity barriers or
siltation filters within the dream. Um, you know, in case of uh is something happening where soil or or debris gets into that stream, it'll be captured. Um,
>> and that plan the plan will name one or more persons on site with authority to represent the developer. And I think the developer actually suggested that wording um who are available um to be contacted when there are uh concerns.
[clears throat] >> That's okay with toll. >> So Jim, that was check damn stupidity barriers. There was a third. >> Yeah. Again, we'll we'll work up the the precise language. Um but >> it's it's all about preventing
downstream. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um downstream degradation of the stream. >> Now where where it goes on to say uh so that foreign matter does not flow into branch two. Is that is that [clears throat]
>> Yeah, that's that's fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. This is this is just adding some wording in there to to clarify what this whole paragraph means. That's all. >> Okay. So I thought this paragraph also was um
meant to apply to other kinds of as I think was already mentioned the um uh noise and dust control and um you know correct me if I'm wrong but
we did we required u or I I think I recall that we required monitoring instruments devices um at the property line with another application um not too
long ago and I wondered whether we could um and I don't remember whether that was just for noise or for noise and dust um but maybe staff can um can weigh in and talk a little bit about what's what's
feasible and uh >> and what makes what gives us, you know, measurable things, as one of the neighbors put it. >> That that was for noise monitoring. I don't recall us actually discussing having noise monitoring at I didn't
listen to the tape, Nathan. Did you? [clears throat] Um whether or not we talked about installing noise monitoring equipment at the property line. >> Um I don't >> You mean last week? last week. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Jim, you did mention it. You mentioned it, Jim. >> Yeah. And I And I >> We did the the reference being to the Princeton University. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> I wasn't I wasn't sure whether or not Toll Brothers had agreed to that. That's
all. >> Right. Right. There's a reference here to dust control with a temporary fence and fabric and uh but there was no noise monitoring beyond compliance with the noise ordinance. But in order to know whether compliance
is, you know, somebody can can be nearby and think that it's too loud and not, you know, have a decibel level meter that they can I mean, how do we know is my point and, you know, are there relatively simple,
you know, not break the bank ways to put a monitor um, you know, at the property line that, you [snorts] measures loss and lets you know when um the
permitted level is being exceeded. >> It's my opinion that this is all part of the demolition and construction management plan >> which will be reviewed by our staff and they'll have a dialogue with the toll folks and they'll figure out what's
needed >> and in fact >> we don't have to put it in the condition. Yeah, David, that's ex that's exactly the the concept here. And then at the end, the last sentence says, "This program shall be subject to the review and approval of the m municipal land use engineer." >> Yeah,
>> which I'm okay with. I just want to um I think that what was suggested um by one of our [clears throat] um people who testified, members of the public and and that I recall from other applications is
that we, you know, have a belt and suspenders approach to making sure that we know whether um uh whether uh noise levels are exceeding the limit. We know whether
>> you know it it just so when you are reviewing the plan if there are common sense >> ways of checking and ma and and knowing so that you know for the peace of mind of neighbors as well as you know on not
just in governor's lane but to the north and west as well. Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. And >> and and and madam chair, the the condition does mention all of that. It starts with the demolition and construction plan shall address off-site
impacts. And then it says it shall include at least the following: noise levels, dust, etc., etc. So, it's it's all in this paragraph. It's just not >> okay. specified that we have to put noise monitoring equipment, but um and
and the the overall plan will be reviewed and appro approved by either me or Deanna. So, >> okay. Well, everything that we can do to take the guesswork out of whether compliance is real is helpful. >> I I I would second that point also,
Madam Chair. I think it's it would just be um fewer headaches if there is some independent verification through some kind of instrument or or something. I I think it'll be easier for the applicant and then easier for the municipal
government as well. >> My experience is that background noise is a is tough to get rid of when you're monitoring noise in a busy street, but we'll we'll see. Uh, Jim, do you have any anything additional?
>> Well, I feel like I'm I feel like I'm testifying [laughter] and and we're just trying to set conditions. Um what we have done on other projects uh one project in particular is actually
require the applicant to um pay for a third party to be there for monitoring and to analyze the um the results or I should
say the applicant provided the monitoring. ing and provided the reports so that a third-party acoustical expert could review that and report back to us that noise levels were being
maintained below state standards. >> Can I can I just throw something out and just see if it um see if this works? Um see uh on the second second sentence it
shall show how noise level at the property line comply with state and any other applicable regulations um uh noise levels uh comply with state and be monitored. [clears throat] >> Yes. >> Like would that be satisfactory to the board?
>> It shall show how noise levels shall be monitored at property line and comply with state and any other applicable regulations. And Jim is uh I'm assuming monitoring is part of the >> Yeah, that that that would work.
>> Good. >> It shall show how noise levels at the property line shall be monitored and comply with state and any other applicable regulations. And I don't want to um have the dust be lost in the mix here
because that was a serious concern of the neighbors as well. So, you know, a fence with mesh is not going to do it. We know, >> right? >> There's going to be watering and stuff like that to keep the dust down. Um, but
again, it's all going to be in the demolition and construction management plan, >> right? >> Thanks for bringing that up, David. That's important. >> Right. >> Good. >> We're good with this one.
>> Yes. 20. >> Number 20. The applicant's representative shall conduct a site visit at the boundary with Governor's Lane and the municipal landscape architect and arborist and representative Governor's Lane and its HOA designates um that its HOA designates. They shall discuss
appropriate screening between the two developments and the possibility of a permanent fence. Um between this one and the next one, uh let me just get the next one down because there's a similar issue across the two. Um okay, that has been brought up by the uh the applicant. Uh so let me just get number 21 down as
well and then we'll turn to the that issue and and discussion. Uh the applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to the approval of the landscape committee and presented to the committee. Topics to be discussed shall include whether a permanent fence shall be placed at the boundary between Governor's Lane and 29th. Decision of
the landscape committee shall be finalist of the landscape plan. Uh the municipal arborist and landscape architect shall be invited to attend the meeting. Uh the main issue that was uh presented uh by the applicant and I'll just let Mr. Tar um uh address this was
uh the fencing. Um I believe it was his understanding that fencing that it was landscape screening that was going to be uh required and not uh fencing. Uh so Mr. Tar uh I'll turn it over to you to uh expand on that. >> I took that from the chair's comment
that she doesn't like fences but uh Well, I I I have reservations. [laughter] I am ambivalent and I I don't I didn't want to um you know I think the landscape committee should
make the final call but I I I would hope that that screening could be done with um you know layers of vegetation uh rather than fencing off one neighborhood from another. Um, we
have two hands up for comments. Mr. Doberilski and then Mr. O'Donnell and then Miss Na. Dan. M. >> Madam Chair, I just wanted to note for the record uh, sorry, Dan. Uh, I should have mentioned this when she first came in. Linda Schwimmer did arrive about five minutes ago.
>> Uh, so she has been uh, on the panel for the last uh, five minutes. Um, >> okay. >> I'm not sure how that relates to the um, vote at the end. Um, uh, Mr. overlap to provide clarification on that, but I just wanted to note that for the record
before we did that. Um, sorry, Dan. >> Okay. >> And if I could jump in for Linda. >> Go ahead, Jerry. Yep. >> Linda, if you could listen to the uh the recording before you came in because otherwise there's a problem with you being able to uh to participate in the vote.
>> Okay. Uh I'm not sure how I would do when would I do >> We're not gonna >> We're not voting tonight. Okay, that's >> Oh, wait a minute. Wait. No, but yes. Yes, we are. After all the conditions are laid out, we would take a vote tonight. So,
>> um, you know, with no shade cast on, you know, whatever delayed you. I don't Are you saying, Mr. Mueller, that that U Miss Schwmer should not partic >> 45 minutes or whatever it was? >> Yeah. Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, sorry, Linda. And also, congratulations. [laughter] >> No, I mean, if you wanna um if you want to, you know, um, leave the meeting, you're
welcome to. And then if you want to watch the um the video of this whole meeting, then when we vote on the resolution, you can vote on that. I think that's >> I'm not sure she can. >> I don't think No. >> Oh, no. Okay. All right. You have to vote on the motion. Yeah, you have to
vote on the motion in order to be eligible to vote on the res. >> Okay. >> Okay, that's fine. I'm sorry. I >> welcome to stay or not. >> Yeah, we're conflict, but I understand. We want to follow the process. So, thank you. I appreciate it. >> It happens. Okay. Thanks.
>> Um Owen, >> uh Dan. >> Oh, Dan, I'm sorry. >> Can you can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, good. I'm not sure my video is working, but I think you now >> it is. Y >> Oh, it is. Good. Okay. So, um, regarding
the fence, um, my recollection is there's a retaining wall there, and there may be a requirement for a fence anyway. It may not have to be a screening fence, but there may be a requirement for a fence at top of the wall for safety purposes. So, it may make sense to leave the comment in there
so that we can evaluate whether just the safety fence that you can see through was acceptable or whether it need needs to be a privacy fence. >> Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you. >> I did have some additional comments on number 21 and 22, which I can go to now
if you'd like me to. >> Um, before you do, let's hear what Owen O'Donnell had on his mind. >> Okay. Just uh very quickly, the landscape committee meeting is a public meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, if a representative from the
Governor's Lane HOA wanted to attend, that would be that would be fine. >> I think the last meeting it was agreed that the president of the HOA would be invited to attend. >> Okay. I think that's the that's the onsite meeting. >> That's Yeah, exactly. That's the on-site
meeting. the landscape committee meeting where we'll, you know, discuss the whole plan and have the, you know, the Zoom meeting. That's a public meeting. It's on the municipal calendar. It's open to the public. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. And those are usually, well, Miss
Earl will um help us schedule it, but they're usually at 9 or 9:30 on a weekday morning. >> So, Tol has confirmed what Tan Dosski just said. There is a retaining wall and there will be a fence of some sort, not
a screening fence. So, there's already some sort of fence, but uh and so we could just leave it that the landscape committee will evaluate screening. >> Good. >> Right. >> Well, with the fence also, they're going to look at what the fence is. >> If it's a screening fence, I it could be
a safety fence. >> It may not be a screening fence, but that'll be all integral is to review of the buffer. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. Good. So the the additional comment on 21 which kind of repeats the same thing was to add in after the word
thenet um um and compliance with comments number four 67 and 8 from the landscape architect report. They total agreed to them to comply with them but nowhere in the resolution does it say that and I don't know that we've
anybody's reviewed the plan to verify that >> we've agreed to it. Good. >> Right. So that that would be just cover that. Did you get that, Jerry? >> You said 4, six, seven, and eight. >> Yeah. Compliance with 4, six, seven, and eight. >> Yep.
>> Um, and then number 22 says that the landscape subcommittee shall identify which trees should be preserved and not be preserved. That could be really difficult with the landscape subcommittee because really that needs to be an on-site evaluation. Um, so I was suggesting that what has
been done in the past is that the municipal arborist should meet with the applicant to evaluate additional trees that can be preserved andor invasive species trees that should be removed. >> That's fine. >> Yeah.
>> And uh Dan, can the landscape committee or members of join for this meeting? uh they typically would not be because the municipal arborist is reviewing that as part of the tree removal permit. Um and so the the direction is given is to try
and save additional trees if you can. Uh it's we're really talking about a handful of trees at most. >> Yes. Um a handful of >> of you know notable old trees. >> And and Dan, you referred to invasive trees. What would the idea be that they
would be uh >> there's a couple there may be based upon their tree ID plan there may be some existing trees that are highly invasive species trees on the site that may make sense to remove them for the overall
ecology of the site. >> Yeah. >> So that was the idea. I mean it may or may not be. You have to look at the tree and see where it's at and what it is. The way they identified the trees it's not clear. Thank you. >> So it my experience is that that type of
evaluation with the landscape subcommittee can become very difficult to do. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah and and at the staff level it's pretty straightforward. >> But that's up to you guys. >> That's that's clearly correct. But the meeting that is referenced in in
item 20, that's one that can >> Yes. >> include members of the >> um landscape subcommittee. >> Yeah, if they wanted participate in that that Yeah, that could definitely work. Matter >> of fact, I think somebody offline asked me if >> which is also an on-site meeting.
>> Yes. And someone asked me offline if they could be at that meeting and I'm sure why not. >> Yeah. So that that's all I have. >> Thanks Dan. So where are we on number 23? >> Yes. If we're okay with number 22 as uh
Mr. Doberilski uh identified, we can move forward to number 23. >> Yeah. >> Uh so number 23 and 24 I wanted to bring together uh and discuss them together. So I'll go through both of them. Uh number 23, the applicant shall prepare a landscape management plan that
will be subject to the review and approval of the landscape committee. And then below that, number 24, the HOA document shall include a specification of what chemicals may not be used in external spaces. The chemicals identified shall be subject to the review and approval of the board landscape architect. Um
so with these there was a question about the um the uh uh effectiveness of specifying um chemicals and and pesticides and herbicides and if it would be better to
um simply lay out uh the the principles that need to be followed for uh uh for uh the the landscape management plan basically. So essentially what the uh what my recommendation would be if we wanted to pursue that path would
basically just to collapse 23 and 24 into each other uh and make the landscape management plan incorporate uh basic principles of sustainable ecological landscape management uh into that landscape management plan and still make it subject to the approval of the
landscape committee. Um that was a board uh member uh comment. Uh I'm trying to like uh just making a recommendation based on that. Uh and so it's up to the board uh to discuss and determine if that's an acceptable uh condition to uh
an acceptable modification to those conditions and whether tool agrees to it. >> Toll tells me that in its HOA documents elsewhere it does not have a list of prescribed chemicals. They just don't so far. So,
>> yeah. And I I I'll jump in because this was something that I reacted to. I I feel like um putting anybody in a position of naming chemicals that shouldn't be used is just a fool's errand because it's just a total moving target. Things
are being approved and well, less often disapproved um all the time. And um and so I would as I referenced at the last meeting I would be happy to share you know a set of um just sort of best
practice approaches that collectively form the basis of so-called ecological landscape management. Um and um and that can be very effective as marketing
uh tools for people who uh care about such things. And um and that this kind of thing is especially important on a site like this where you're just right on top of um conservation easement areas and open
waters and you know the the tributary and also Harry'sbrook. So um I sent to Mr. foot. Um, uh, some bullet points outlining, you know, those principles and we can share them with the applicant before the landscape subcommittee and of
course with the with the committee itself and hopefully, you know, um, end up with a commitment to a landscape management plan on this site that's not the sort of typical
um, HOA calls the landscape company that promises to keep the grass green 12 months out of the year and fertilize it every other month and you know that kind of thing. Um
if that is uh so I'll stop talking now but that >> that's what >> are you are you suggesting [cough] that the bullet points >> Larry I mean Jerry can >> are you suggesting that the bullet points in the email you sent to Nathan should be included in the condition
seems to me makes sense >> I think what um would make more sense is going back to Nathan's point collapsing 23 and 24 together and just saying management landscape management principles can be included in the
landscape management plan um that will be reviewed by the subcommittee >> without the kind of detail that uh >> I I I don't think these conditions require that level of detail if the landscape subcommittee is going to be reviewing a management plan that includes these ecological management
principles >> then just as a practical matter if we could somebody could pass those that list along to the would be >> and yeah right and that that's I al I'm also hesitant to include those bullet points at this point is >> right >> part of the condition is because obviously this is something that poll is
going to need to put together and we don't want to put you on the spot is like you you know you know agree to bullet points you haven't seen yet. So, uh, >> try not to, >> right? And just, you know, not to be, you know, cy about or anything. We're talking about minimizing lawn areas,
landscaping with native plants, especially so-called keystone species, never allowing mulch volcanoes, not using chemical fertilizers, instead fertilizing with compost, not using pesticides, herbicides, or
fungicides except to address specific urgent problems, which is the IPM approach. and leave the leaves, things like that. And and um you know, they they become really basic. [laughter] And it's the kind of thing which if you do, you know, you can get all kinds of
certifications and put a little sign up that says you're, you know, river friendly or you're pollinator habitat or you're, you know, whatever. But it's it makes an environment safe for for kids and pets and uh
and uh creatures and um you know the general public. >> The toll's ears went up when you said it would help with marketing. >> It does. People care about that. Well, yeah, they do. Um yeah, the challenge is
going to be finding a a a landscaper who understands that. Exactly. >> Well, you know, between the sustainable jur, excuse me, sustainable Princeton and the watershed institute, both of those organizations have done training
specifically for landscapers, not only to tell them how to manage and, you know, maintain um green infrastructure, BMPs, and of which there's a one very big one on this site, [laughter] the fire retention basin,
>> but also So um how to um you know manage properties and in eco you know truly eco-friendly ways and even providing grants for you know purchasing um u electric leaf blowers and that kind of
thing. So um so there are more people professionals out there that know how to do the right thing than there used to be. But I think we're all in agreement that Nathan's language is >> the right way to go not to incorporate
all of the very wonderful educational information you just shared with us. Yeah, >> Madam Chair, not into the >> I know it horse. I just didn't want to make it a mystery what what I was talking about. Thank you.
>> 25. >> Uh number 25. The roof of all buildings shall be solar ready. Um Tol did uh provide a an addition to that uh the end of that sentence. Uh so it reads the roofs of all buildings shall be solar ready by installation of conduits to the
roof. >> Good. 26. >> Okay. Uh all exterior lighting shall be dark sky compliant. I have no comments. There were no comments on that one either. >> Good. 27
>> uh storm water operation and maintenance manual for all proposed before we get there. I have an environmental >> oh sorry about that. Go ahead Freddy. >> Um well actually I have two but this was in our report. It wasn't discussed but we would like to see it if it could
still be picked up in here since this is not a new topic and that would be to have um electric all electric appliances including induction ranges and heat pump technology. It's just the system the the network doesn't support that much electricity. >> No.
>> Oh, okay. Talk about that. And the other question, and I hesitate to bring this up frankly, but um is on the uh wetlands and the new we we understand that the the juror um
grandfathered, but would like to know if there's anything at all that could be done either to increase the the buffers or do something in in another way to protect the wetlands. H [clears throat] we can work with staff the the again the
way that wetlands are protected by buffers that can be adjusted but the engineer is here if you wanted to talk with him about it but I my my recollection of the testimony was that we're constrained materially constrained by conservation
>> I understand that I understand that but to the extent that that something could be done we'd like to see it >> to further constrain the site Yeah, [laughter] we're not I think I think it is a problem to be introducing things that weren't
discussed at the hearing. I mean, >> well, and one one approach to that that to meet this the spirit of what you're talking about is when we look at the landscape plan, >> if there, you know, has been a lawn leading right up to the edge of the uh
of the little ravine that the tributary is in. you know, maybe part of that area is is planted with deeper rooted native plants and not lawn which provide a much better
um you know filtering properties. So that you know that kind of thing can be can be looked at in the in the context of a landscape plan. >> So we're restoring the repairarian zone next to the stream. We there was testimony last time about cleaning the
stream of uh invasive plants. Yeah, >> you know, and and if if uh Dandelki is correct and a tree could be saved, that would increase the preserved areas if we don't cut down a tree. But it's a very very tight site.
>> I understand that. I understand that. >> Okay. Thanks for that. And it it'll it'll get our attention at the at the next step. Not the redesign of the property, but the but the beefing up of
the buffer and um and the improvement of water quality. Um where are we? 20 28 >> 27 uh the storm water basically providing a storm water operation and maintenance manual which I'll also note
is point number eight from the uh storm water management consultants uh report >> shall do. >> Mhm. >> Uh number 28 uh points 2 to 7 of the dynamic engineering May 14th 2026 response letter page five shall be
satisfied. I'll also note that those points two to seven also correspond to points two through seven of the uh storm water management consultants report. >> Correct. >> And we would prefer to refer to that instead of dynamic engineering's uh
>> sure memo. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that's something we can do in during the uh drafting uh drafting phase. All right, I think we're in the home stretch now. >> There's more. >> 29. [laughter]
>> Uh, the plan should be revised to incorporate the site plan exhibits submitted as exhibit A2. I think most of those have been incorporated, but just as a catchall. Uh, I think that's why we have why Jerry uh proposed this one. >> Correct. >> So, if everybody's good, we can uh move
on to 30. Uh, pets shall be uh pets shall be permitted in all units. uh tool did have a a revision in addition uh to the end of the sentence subject to limitations on size and type uh by uh HOA by the HOA.
>> Let me ask will pitbulls be permitted or will they be discriminated against? >> Which side are you on, Jerry? [laughter] >> The only dog that ever went after me was a basset hound. And two of them two of them did that. No bad.
>> I don't know. No bad. >> So, go figure. I think I think pit bulls are sweethearts. Go ahead. Number 30 or 31. >> They're nice to people but not to other dogs. [laughter] >> Fair enough. >> Unfortunately, David, you've said that
before and that is very true. [laughter] >> All right. Number 31. Unit distribution table shall be uh corrected and shall be included on one of the plans. There were no comments on this one. >> Okay. Go ahead. two 323 >> correct 32. The HOE documents shall be subject
to the review and approval of the board attorney, planner, and land use engineer. Again, no comment. There were no comments on this one. >> Okay. >> From any of the uh parties. Uh 33. HOA fee shall be based on the size of the unit or such other metrics that staff
approves. Uh I did have a recommended change on this one. Instead of saying that staff approves, uh I'd prefer to see as regulated by U-Hack. Exactly. Yeah. >> So, if we're all good with that change, we can >> David.
>> Yes. >> Uh at compliance, the applicant shall show all snow storage spaces. >> Oh, then most gases hand up. Dan. >> Yeah. I just wonder does does that need to be coordinated with the landscape plan to make sure they don't dump the
snow on top of plants? >> Good point. >> Sounds right. Why don't we incorporate that into the landscape plan, Dan? >> That would be great if that's acceptable. >> Yes. >> All right. >> I I will note that it is in our markup
memo that way. [laughter] >> Lost in translation. >> And 35. >> Uh the applicant shall submit to planning staff the fireflow test done in November 2025. Uh in addition um something that was discussed was uh
review and approval of the plans by uh the fire official. >> Sure. >> Good. >> And that can be done as an uh uh part of that condition or as a a separate condition. Either way, we can figure that out. >> Either one.
>> All right. And ladies and gentlemen, that uh that concludes the reading and the discussion of the condition. >> Thank you, Nathan. So, having heard all of that and contributed to discussion, um would a member of the board like to make a motion?
>> I would like to make a motion um to uh approve this application um pending all the conditions that we've just discussed. >> We'll say >> thank you, Miss Na. Uh, I saw Owen's hand go up, but I think
I heard Owen's voice. >> I heard [laughter] David. >> Seconded by Mr. Cohen. Uh, Miss Earl, would you call the role, please? >> Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. >> Miss Na,
>> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Miss Pearlmutter, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Anderson, >> yes. Chair Wilson. >> Yes. >> Motion carried.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. And I also want to thank members of the public for um I think there are maybe 10 or so here now. 12 12 attendees some many of whom I
think were here last week and um you know whose testimony was important um to this whole deliberation. So, we we appreciate that and um thanks to all you board members and staff um for great
work on this. Our next meeting is June 18th. Um and unless anyone else has something to say for the good of the order. Oh, Justin. >> Oh, yeah. [laughter] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I'm
going to say what Nathan was about to say. Uh, we don't have anything on the agenda right now for June 18th. So, >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, we lost Justin. >> Yeah, I think we lost. Just so everybody knows, Justin Oh, there he is. >> Sorry about that. >> Cancel.
>> The meeting will likely be cancelceled on the 18th. >> Okay. All right. And I would I would like I would like to make a note that uh if uh Councilman Cohen uh moves to adjourn, it is still light outside. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Very very nice. >> Yeah. Let me quickly make a motion to adjourn before that changes. >> Second. [laughter] All in favor say I. I. >> Good night all. >> Thanks everyone. >> Thank you everyone. Have a great weekend.
Thank you.