statement good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the Princeton planning board on Thursday February 6th 2025 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the
resolution of regularly scheduled meetings of the planning board of Princeton for February 2025 through January 2026 a copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on january8 8 2024 legal notice on the adoption of
said resolution was published in the January 17 2025 edition of the Princeton packet notice of this meeting also has been posted to the municipal website Princeton nj.gov calendar notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton
planning board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet in the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday January 17th 2023 please note that this meeting is being
recorded during hearings on applications for development members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions questions may be asked after an applicant's Witnesses have testified public comment is heard by the board after an applicant's Representatives have finished their
presentations and have been questioned planning board members and staff those wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if
participating by phone by pressing star n oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised we ask with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less 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 contain obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted Miss Phillip will you call the role
Please Mr bodimer here miss capoli here Mr Cohen here mayor Freda here Mr McOwen here miss Nuka here Mr
odonnell here miss mutter here Mr Taylor here Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here we have a quorum and let me let me just say for the record that that David and Julie need to be sworn in so
they're not officially members yet but we're going to but given that I think the them voting as I did is is is perfectly appropriate um okay and in fact I'm going to swear in David and Julie at this point who wants to go first
I'll go I'm ready okay okay Julie if you can read what's before you and where it says swear in the first line put it say affirmed okay and then at the end it says princet and planning board that will be class two member Roman to class
two right okay I since I Julie capazo sincerely profess and affirm that I do and swear will bear true faith and allegiance to the government established in this state under the authority of the
people I do solemnly affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and I will faithfully impartially and justly perform all the duties of the office of
planning Princeton planning board Class 2 according to the best of my ability and understanding so help me God congratulations and I really appreciate it this was so significant for you that you had a bunch of balloons uh yeah love
the balloons that was a great T okay he David if you could read and um you're the class three member as you know yes great I David Cohen sincerely profess and swear that I do and will
bear true faith and allegiance to the government established in this state under the authority of the people I do Sol ly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and that I will
faithfully impartially and justly perform all the duties of the office of Princeton planning board class three member according to the best of my ability and understanding so sworn in congratulations and welcome back and
Julie welcome back as well thank you yes absolutely um it's great great to see both your faces and everyone else's as well um announcements do we have any announcements um Justin Lesco or or from
board members or other staff nope seeing none uh we have no uh subcommittee reports because as as of right this very minute we have no subcommittees but tomorrow um uh Owen and I have talked about this and
tomorrow I will forward uh to Justin um and Carrie the subcommittees uh and they'll get them out to you guys um quickly I'm sure um minutes we have three sets of
minutes um February 22nd that was a special meeting and then April 4th and June 20th both regular meetings so taking them in order um the February 20 second special meeting uh from 2024 was
there any [Music] um questions or suggested edits and if not would someone like to move them I'll move them thank you Mr Cohen seconded by
I'll second second okay thank you Julie capoli um call the role Please Mr bimer hi Miss capoli yes Mr Cohen yes Mr McGowan yes
Mr odonnell yes Miss Wilson Anderson yes Mrs Wilson yes motion carried um I know I've made this mistake before
but we we can we can pass the minutes with a Voice vote can we not it's the resolutions we need to vote on um correct true correct okay so the next ones I'll just say all in favor instead of asking call vote um good so April 4th
um 2024 any suggested edits or questions about these minutes and if not who would like to move them I'll move them thanks Mr mwan seconded by Owen O'Donnell all in favor please say I I
any opposed or abstaining say if you're abstaining because if you weren't here you're automatically uh and finally the June 20th 2024 uh regular meeting minutes questions or suggested edits and if
not uh who would like to move I'll move approval thank youy seconded by Miss Wilson Anderson thank you all in favor please say I I I any opposed oh
abstaining thank you thank you um okay uh next up we have an application um this is at 21 Wiggins LLC it's a minor site plan a modification in fact to an approved site plan um located at 21 wigin street block
27.2 Lots 42 43 44 file number P2 2424 d523 PM Madam Madam um mation and service are in order the notice is proper and the board has
jurisdiction great thank you um Justin leco yes thank you madam chair um I'll be sworn in but Ian Henderson is going to get tonight okay oh I'm I'm sorry excuse me I should have checked on that
ahead of time so we'll swear you both in all all aboard professionals are there any other professionals here who can be uh Mr Bridger and Mr Weissman are both here yep so go raise your right hand you swear or affirm that teson about to give be the truth yes I do so sworn or affirm
please just go around and say your full names uh Justin Lesco Ian Henderson Dan Weisman D you're muted but I saw him say his thank you
thanks okay um Ian Henderson great I'll just uh share my screen by all right so as mentioned we're in um block 27.0 2 uh lot 42 so you can see
that around the light blue outline uh this is I don't see your screen in yeah oh let me see let's try this there we go we're getting there got got it okay excellent all right thank
you and let's mark that as pb1 and um I if you could identify what that is sure so this is um block 27.0 2 lot 42 uh that you see in the light blue outline this is currently the parcel Explorer from the publicly accessible Rowan
University website um the parcel Explorer and um and so it's subject property so as we we mentioned we have applicant 21 Wiggins LLC they're seeking to modify a previously approved preliminary and final major site plan um
that contained a bulk variance this is uh to a minor site plan application without a variance um I just want to emphasize that the the previously approved variance is still in place um tonight there is no change in total units or any other parking modifications
proposed and no additional variances requested tonight uh for the site itself we we're familiar you can see it's close to the prin Public Library lies at the corner of Wiggins in North tan uh we have the Presbyterian cemetery across the
street um in terms of of Transit and accessibility we have pretty walkable uh close to downtown um we have public transit through uh NJ Transit we have the weather spoon stop at at Paul Robison um and we also have the Spring
Street Garage located uh nearby so since this is a modification I really just wanted to run down the um the application history and give a little bit of the prior application details so uh there was an initial application back in 2021 uh this was
approved by the planning board on December 9th um and involved just this uh property that we've mentioned um there was a lock consolidation of these three so the 40 41 and 42 I believe oops sorry
um and so the home that uh that you see where it actually says high tops that is the previous home of the high tops and the bayed Ruston social uh justice center and in this application the um the first floor office use would remain
the second floor would be converted to an apartment and then um we're looking at a a uh a newly constructed apartment building next to it uh four stories with uh 18 total Apartments four
affordable units um and then so 19 total would be uh with the new unit above high tops or the former high tops um so the this is within the
ah1 overlay um so this enabled the applicant to utilize some increased density incentives uh in in return for that there was the M the maintenance of the um of the existing house Frontage on uh Wigan
Street and um and so there was a a uh approved findings of fact for this on February 3rd of 2022 and so per the municipal land use law when you have that approved uh final major site plan uh when you have that date a uh site
plan has given protection against zoning changes for two years from that adoption date um and then the board would have discretion to extend that period of protection for um for one year up to three times so it's that two-year initial protection and then three
oneyear increments uh from that date uh there was an extension granted uh to February 3rd of 2025 so just this week so we believe another extension will be necessary uh previously the applicant said that uh extension was originally
required or requested because of the covid-19 and just economic downturn um in in the general climate um since the approval and memor memorialization of the application there has not been any zoning changes that
would affect the outcome or anything um of concern uh the site itself uh is in the suggested Central residential historic district but it's not in a locally designated historic district there's no uh additional historic preservation uh
commission review required the if anybody is interested the historic preservation officer did prepare uh report and recommendations on the on the previous preliminary and final major site site plan from 2021 it's also in the RB Zone uh just
for history that was created in 1974 from Parcels that were previously zoned R4 residential and ro1 uh that's resident office uh the planning board voted against the zoning change and the council overrode that with unanimous vote um so just to emphasize one more
time that tonight we're we're discussing the modifications uh the structure the apartment structure that uh the applicant will show in detail has already been approved and again the high Toops remaining and and I'm sorry I keep
calling it that but the office end of it uh will remain that all uh holds so we're just going to talk about the the modifications so um I'll I'll have the abin described in detail but we're really looking in terms of the a decrease in size in a bike room uh an
increase size in a mechanical room a decrease in a trash room there's a rotation of stairs which affects the um the layout of the uh the floors and some of the the size of the rooms as well uh there are additional balconies
that are going to be added um but I'll I'll leave the to discuss in Greater detail uh there would be an ENT entrance canopy as well um and and in terms of uh smart growth I
mean it's it's we support generally it's a a great project in terms of smart growth principles we're looking at compact development uh it varies the choices of housing direct infill within an existing Community um just in
relation to our our master plan itself um we have our land go use that is satisfied that we're looking to increase residential near the downtown right now we have um according to the municipality's 2020 housing
element and fair share plan only 17.6% of the buildings in town were five units or more so this you know this is great in terms of uh density and um and I mean it just you know the the repeat of of being close to
downtown you have it in the Economic Development Goal to increase workers who can um commute close by and by foot or public transit um and the RB residence business Zone itself was actually specifically called out as one of the
downtown locations uh for the quote development of new residential dwelling uh to be promoted um I believe that's about all I have to kick this off if there's any further
comments uh regarding the application we'll be sure to chime back in after the applicant presents thank you thank you Ian I there were a few questions um raised in the memos that I I'm sure the the applicant will address um I did want
to say and please you know Ian or Justin or Jerry correct me if I'm wrong but um just for the board if you're in case you're wondering this is an application that um would have gone to the or could
have gone to the site plan subcommittee since it's a minor site plan with no variances um but um because we were a little slow getting off The Mark with the committee appointments um uh the applicant chose to come to the full
board in the interest of time and expediency and Etc so I think I have that right if I have it wrong I want somebody to um to correct me but in case any of any of our board members are like uh are
curious I thought I would throw that in the mix yes ma Madam chair that's correct um the municipal land use law and our ordinance allows for uh these minor site plan applications to be reviewed by the full board or a subcommittee thereof um
if there's no subcommittee to review it then the full board reviews it and uh as of now until you know I think the near future very near future there's no subcommittee but um I don't anticipate we'll see too many more applications like this uh before the fall
board yeah we'll have that have those committee lists uh to you uh very shortly so um any any other uh anything else that staff Mr Bridger Mr Weissman anybody want to raise before we hear
from from the applicant uh Dan Weissman Madam chair uh good evening everyone just a couple of quick points I wanted to make before uh we hand it over to the applicant um so there's a zoning provision to utilize the provisions of
the ah1 zoning District um the biggest of which is the retention of Street fronting buildings um the applicant for this application uh for the modification has determined that the roof needs replacement of the structure um and that roof will be replaced in kind uh so
staff has determined that that replacement uh as it is a currently deteriorated roof uh still meets the intent of that provision um and with that provision it's it's this specific site uh has identified this you know this this building uh is contributing to
that that a01 zoning District Street fronting Corridor um so that complies uh regarding Landscaping the uh it's just mainly a clarification in the memo there's um a note that the prior approval uh required removal of six
trees um there's also a note that the memo shows that two additional trees are proposed to be removed which is not correct there are two proposed trees that will no longer be installed uh there's a Transformer that is proposed
uh to the rear left of the or Southwest of the uh building um where those trees are no longer able to be uh installed they still meet the replacement requirements of the Princeton ordinance um there's just two trees that it was 11
trees that were going to be installed along that lot line um now there's only nine um so just two clarifications on the report I wanted to make um other than that there was a sign that the applicant has on their plans uh fronting
on Wigan Street uh staff was just uh would like the applicant to clarify if that is for the commercial use or will be for the resident essentially goose and with that that is all I'd like to bring up now and see what the applicant has right thank you thank you uh Mr
degia welcome hello good evening thank you madam chair uh Mr Mayor members of the planning board um before I get started could we bring over Aubrey Haynes I believe he's in the uh attendees we brought over the wrong
Aubrey I think it's his son certainly I didn't realize that oops um go I only see I only see Richard will
and Anthony as options so Aubrey you brought over Aubrey Haynes there we now have did senior and Junior or Junior and third or wherever they fall in the in the family hierarchy okay thank you
um Christopher why don't we swear in now at the outset all of the witnesses you expect or may may testify okay and who would that be who would that be since you're talking about Aubry why don't we have him sworn in okay start with him we
have our architect Samantha Bard our project design manager Anthony Sela oh I messed up his name catella sorry and Ralph Petrella are civil engineer is Ralph patella here yes but his camera is
not on yet there we go look if you could raise your right hand you you swear or affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth yes yes yes want toir if you go around please
say your full name and spell your last name Aubrey Hayes Hai NES thank you Samantha Bard b a r
d thank you Anthony catella CI v t l l a thank you Ralph p t r e l l a thank you okay Christopher you um for the record
my name is Christopher degia from the law firm of figury Drinker Biddle and wreath here on behalf of the applicant 21 Wiggins LLC um I appreciate the introduction um from Mr Henderson uh just one
clarification um just for the record the lots are 42 43 and 44 and they were Consolidated and new Lot number is lot
78 okay um the application as mentioned is you know it's a little bit different that the planning board May typically see it's something that you would pretty much see before the site plan subcommittee as was mentioned so we're
really here talking about very very minor tweaks like changing windows and sliding glass doors to make them a little bit better so we're we're really talking about tonight minor changes to the building that result very
significant improvements um so you're going to see a much better uh quality building in interior space um for example we're shifting um one of the stairwells by 90 Dees and that's going to open it up for a better flow to the
residential unit um we're increasing the height of the ceiling to height inside the building so each of the floors will get um from 2 to four will get four extra inches which will be really nice for people living there um and we're
adding another foot to the first floor still well below what's required um the max in the zone um we're adding operating windows so to let in uh fresh air which is another great thing and um as I mentioned the sliding glass doors
um we they were proposed as hinge doors we're going to make them sliding glass to the balconies so that you know there's more space and more room um so basically and this is it this is the sum total with a couple of little extra little tweaks here um we're talking
about improving Aesthetics improving the quality in the living experience um with that being said I could oh I I do want to mention because it was brought up um we have a copy of your reports um particularly the engineering and
Zoning report which had conditions we have no objection to any of the conditions and the one question that was in that report uh was clarity as to the sign it's actually a commercial sign so it is um for the office segment of the
existing building that's being retained that's going to be a commercial or office sign there um so I think that's all the questions that was all that was in the report cour again we meet we uh agree to all the conditions I think what we can do is uh show you some of those
um changes that I you know I spoke about um we'll have our I think we'll start off let me have our um Architects SW uh I know Samantha you were already sworn in let me have you qualified for the record um can you give us your okay
you're off mute now can you give us a little bit about your history and your licensing sure um my I'm a project architect at USA Architects and received my license at the end of December excellent and you're licensed
in New Jersey correct licensed in New Jersey okay and um Anthony where are you I don't see oh there you are Miss B can can you tell us a little bit about your um educational background sure I got my
bachelor of architecture from NJIT The Five-Year degree and I have been uh working I have eight years of experience thank you Anthony CWA can you tell us um a little bit about your exper
your educational experience um you're here as the project designer manager yes I have my uh Bachelor of Science in architecture from Temple University as well as my masters of architecture from the University of
Michigan and I've been practicing at USA architect for six years thank you um so I we have a very short presentation I think it's uh five sheets um we could pull that up
um Anthony would you are you able to pull that up if not okay yes I have it up let me know if you yes that'd be great if you can go through and just describe to the board what they're seeing here that'd be great sure and so
this you just as to whether we need to mark them as exhibits these are these are all in the plan set Anthony yes yes these were the Y okay so if you could just indicate you know what sheet they are each of them are in the plan set and I don't think we need to
separately mark them sure we should identify the whole plan set as we did not put them on the website okay yeah let's let's make that exhibit then we'll make that exhibit A1 yeah thank you I was going to say that as well Jerry
because because of the reports there were some questions asked in this one we're going to get biking so we did make some changes to show how we're going to address it just to make it clear so um these these should be ex uh exhibit A1 which will be five sheets and we'll
identify the sheets as we go through and this is the first floor plan sheet one or okay Christopher when you say you've made some changes those are reflected on the plan sheets that you that were actually submitted yeah it's more of details and answering questions than anything else related to mostly to the
bikes really honestly so okay we'll go through that um okay Anthony right uh thank you Chris uh so I'm just gonna walk through the building and just and highlight all the changes and updates um that we've that
we've made um so to start we just want to identify that we have our um interior bike storage um in the lower right corner um right now we're showing two uh nine rack uh bike holders that can hold
up to 18 uh bicycles indoors um additionally we have um two public bike racks that are adjacent to the the main entrance and these are side
by side uh bike racks so that the bike racks are not um protruding into the right of way or sidewalk we have a detail of that on this sheet here right to the right so it's a it's a minimalist bike rack but um it it'll
it'll serve it'll help serve the um uh public use for for uh any public bikes um so just to to clarify for the board um the the review report the engineering um and Zoning officers
report indicated that where we had the bikes located would interfere with the sidewalk so we shifted did it around so that's why there's a little change to the um the the way that the bike the bike parking is is outside um we also
are um 18 we have 18 indoor 16 are required so we're above the required amount thank you that was exactly my question good correct thank you Chris um additionally like mentioned um stair one
in the middle was rotated 90 degrees um this allowed us on the upper floors as you'll see to create more efficient units in the southwest corner particularly the two uh two affordable units that are on that
floor so as we move up um the to the upper floors um you can see how stair one the rotation was able to allow us to create a two-bedroom affordable unit at this corner is a much more efficient layout
additionally we squared this corner of the building off to allow for this unit to stack and might be the same design on each floor additionally we added the same type of balcony to this unit the same
pre Manu pre-manufactured metal balcony that's on the that's at all the other units are now at this unit as well um further we we swapped out the hinge doors that were um that were uh at
the balcony areas for sliding doors so this actually allows for more usable space on the balcony as well as all windows that are on the project are operable windows so maximizing fresh air
intake um on each unit also on the just above the first flooor um we added an entrance canopy so now when tenants or public are entering the building there is some some Shield
uh for for weather um and and it provides um a visual uh visual aid for where the entrance was as well as making sure that the lettering on of the address that's on the canopy would be numbered and not lettered
um the like that's that's those were the uh those were the changes um the like I said the floor plan stack um we have our um we have our Corner affordable units on both second and third floor um all
the layouts are the are the same as they Stack Up um this is just showing the fourth floor FL plan which is similar um to the second and third and then um the last two are just um going to be the exterior renderings this
is from uh two lane street so you can see the entrance canopy um in addition you can see the bike racks the public bike racks that will be on the side adjacent to um to to the main entrance building and and for the record this is
sheet four out of the five thank you correct correct were the sizes of the affordable units modified there there were General tweaks but nothing was made smaller that you know they were so the question the sizes changed a
little bit Jerry because we were asked to um make them have more bedrooms in them than originally proposed like we shifted from a two-bedroom to a three-bedroom um and we also um um I guess I guess I'll ask the
architect that if they can just go into the numbers but I they're pretty much the same because as they say they stack above and below so the units are are pretty consistent throughout it's not when you look at these they look they look the same you know the the balconies are the same
every aspect is the same now it's very nice correct and we actually were able to a a big part of this was rotating the stair so we were able to pick up more square footage previously this was a a one-bedroom affordable we were actually
able to make it a two-bedroom by also sliding the demising walls over and making the making the demising walls and and the the separation between the units more unified and equal so that helped us um distribute the the square footage to
each unit more evenly and like and like we said because everything now Stacks up there's consistency on each floor good changes yeah it's well it was required that that the there be three two-bedroom
and one three-bedroom right that was a condition of the prior approv corre yeah yeah exactly you asked that's why I said you asked us to shift the bedroom count and increase it so we we did um and the you may also remember the affordable unit was in the center and we shifted it
to the corner which is what that board asked us to do and we agreed to so right so it's it's it's um it's a much better flow and design right now just from that little shift of the stairwell Christopher as you know um and Justin could get into this if you would
like um back in December there were new regulations adopted for the uniform housing affordability controls uck which is now just called hack but it included um for the first time requirements of the about the size of the affordable units do you comply with those we we
believe we do there's one unit that we talked about um I think it's the one right there with there there's a janitor closet if we convert over the Jan Janitor's Closet and um tweak it a little bit we'll meet all the requirements okay and and Jerry if I
could jump in um I I would recommend to the board or I would ask the board um if uh if you choose to approve this modification if there could be a condition to allow for some flexibility of the staff to work with the applicant
to make sure that all those hack requirements are um being met uh this is another case where we received these documents before that new uh uh those
new rules went into effect um I think it would be unfair to send the applicant back to the drawing board um based on uh how kind of small some of these rebalancing uh uh you know of square
footage might be so um I think that might be the way to provide some flexibility where um the rooms might not be exactly what you're seeing tonight U but something might be you know might go from 995 square feet to
1,035 uh so just the the you know small requirement or some other rebalancing um that we can work with the applicant on Christopher that you're okay with that yeah we'll definitely work with staff on that I I we think it's a yeah
yes we okay good um and uh was there anything else Anthony that you wanted to to talk about I think we we covered everything like I said these are very small tweaks but they make a significant um contribution
to the overall um Aesthetics and the you know the the living space within the building um I do want to say um you know Jerry I'm I'm not sure um how this works in in terms of extension since this is a minor but if if we can add on just so we
have a period of protection if we can add on a year we would make that request this evening as well so it would take us to next uh next year this month basically yep yeah I think we can it's it's a
pleasure of board obviously but I think what as the authority to do that yep thank you and would that be uh part of the resolution or does that need to be a standalone um document and vote I think it could be part of the resolution
okay and Christopher wild we talking about conditions maybe it's a little premature uh obviously there's a set of conditions in the approval which is being modified but uh are there any that that um you're suggesting uh need to be
modified no okay good great Mr Cohen yeah I just um really minor but in terms of the bicycle parking calculations staff did a different bicycle according
to the report staff did a different bicycle requirement calculation then is listed on the architect's plans and I would suggest that the there be a condition that the architect uh update
the bicycle parking requirement calculations uh to to match what uh staff did that was not in the staff report but I would suggest that certainly agreeable whenever whenever I see a
conflict David we always go with staff that's wise prudent I didn't quite catch what you said did you say it was not in the uh so that the staff report noted that their calculation of the bike parking was different I see than the applicants but
they did not yes propose a condition that the applicant update the calculations on their drawings and I wanted to make that clear okay and then I have one other very minor thing it's a suggestion not a condition that I want
to impose but I was struck this doesn't have anything to do with the changes but I was struck when I looked at the North elevation uh of the addition you know which is what you see behind the existing
21 uh you don't have this in your package tonight but it was in the package that was on the website that elevation is extremely blank and I think you could add a few Windows into some of the
apartments um that would both enen the uh the elevation and it would also make those apartments more desirable and you've done that on the other end on the south end of the building the Corner Apartments have windows on both you know
both sides so I I just think you could do the same thing um at the opposite end and and make those that elevation a little nicer you have a slide showing that elevation it's it's not in it's not in here yeah
okay that acceptable um we could take a look at it I think there was a reason why our architect um didn't have a window there and maybe I could ask them to to to comment on it but I mean we could take a look at it I
I think with the building there well I don't know I I I can ask um someone from our architect I'll speak now yes we'll take a look at it David great it'll be and is that the I think it would be a benefit
to you I agree yeah and is that the South elevation no it's it's the side that has the existing structure correct oh okay okay fine thank you U just just a note about that as
well um so one of the reasons we don't have Windows along this facade um so we obviously have our circulation cords in the middle that stack up we wouldn't have any Windows there um additionally in the in this unit the Southwest unit the only part of the unit that's exposed
along here is the bedroom um we don't feel that would be um desirable to have a window kind of behind your bed in this area as well as having one here um but we can certainly look um at this corner um we obvious we have our our kitchen
along this wall um but there is an opportunity along this corner um to add an additional window for sure at at that at this unit on our floors I would just say as somebody who spends a lot of time standing at the
sink it's really nice to have window there um Mr Taylor yeah may I ask just for clarification and really think my clarification is for you Justin that the hack regulations could we understand
what again are they how material are they and as a practical matter if for any reason along the way these regulations are in some VI violation what's the impact of a problem
ongoing sure uh so hack stands for housing affordability controls it used to be uniform housing affordability controls and it's essentially what uh regulates the uh any restricted or or designated affordable unit uh in the
state so for something to to fully count as a designated affordable unit you comply with these rules um and the rules differ uh depending on 100% affordable versus inclusionary rental versus inclusionary to own ones in terms of
both the physical makeup of the apartment uh which is what we're talking about tonight as well as what comes after um of uh what levels of uh income they're set at and and What the residents can be charged at and all that
sort of stuff uh so the reason it comes up tonight um well well let me step back uh the the hack ones went into effect December 19th of last year until December of next year uh at that point I don't know what's going to happen are
they going to be extended are they going to go back to the uck or is there going to be something new um I suppose these were intended to be temporary or or just a year long for now um but what we're talking about tonight uh there are a
variety of rules of things that we've kind of discussed in the past that we never truly uh you know there was never truly a requirement for such as minimum sizes of those apartments uh the designated affordable ones um ranging to
things like having to have a window in every bedroom um or uh I'm not sure if you were on the board yet Mr Taylor when this originally came up but there was a big discussion about where the affordable units were going to be placed and what's more desirable uh you know
location wise um and these new hack rules now have uh requirements of of things like that you can't cluster them in the least desirable place um you can't make them much smaller you can't make them uh you know have different uh features to some extent within them um
so really it's a a more comprehensive uh list of requirements for designated affordable units than it was in the past um but like I said we are we are studying them in real time as applicants are um I I really would have hated it if we had a application on
December 19th of last year with affordable units in it because I don't know what we would have done um but it does not uh because it's not a zoning change or really a part of the municipal land use law the time of application
rule uh does not seem to apply uh for these rules meaning an application like this that we got before December 19th of last year uh still falls under these rules you know because that was the effective date unlike if there was a zoning change
or anything like that where we would go when we got the application so does that answer your question Mr Taylor almost I'm I'm still confused sure what if any is the significance of your description
and where things stand on an approval is it a conditionality what's the Practical implication of your description of hack on this sure for these units or any units to be considered as uh you know
designated affordable or what they call restricted units um they need to comply with with those regulations so our ordinance says you need to have 20% in a building like this to use the aho um it then for those to count as 20% they need
to uh you know comply with the hack rules so it would be a condition uh of approval for the the units to comply with those rules now just what I what we're asking at this time is uh for
something where the changes might be so minor on an application like this is to be able to work with the applicant after um rather than say hey come back in two months or or you're now incomplete and and you got to redesign or anything like that um because I I do think there is a
uh what you're seeing tonight there's a a you will end up getting this with just very minor changes that might be you know somewhat uh imperceptible so we can deal with it as a practical matter in
short exactly in in this case Jack could and we're fortunate they that they're back if they weren't back there's a question that that um Justin if I struggle with a developer comes in gets an approval has not gotten the building permit now these hack
regulations have out they're not in compliance with that what do they have to do they have to come back and modify the plan but here they're already be before us so it's you know it's much easier to deal with good well taken uh I
just want to quickly clarify I I think that um Justin when you were saying when you talked about um you know not locating units in the least desirable place you're talking about within a building
or within a project as opposed to a part of town yeah is that correct yeah so yeah this is Project Specific yes yes um Nat bodimer thank you madam chair uh this is a question for staff as well just
following up on Jack Taylor's question uh so I take from what you're saying that uh well okay the question is if we are
okay with the working out subsequently are we at any risk of making of approving something that's that would be in conflict with the state uh affordable housing guidelines and
that while we had approved it someone outside of you know at the state level or some other level would take issue with it I don't I don't think so that because the conditions going to provide it's going to have to be reviewed by staff and staff is going to have to make
the Judgment um that it complies it's not that they can look at it and they did a job good job they came fairly close acted in good faith they have to comply and that's what the conditionals say and they work with staff to do that all right so the conditions are simply that it will comply even if we don't
know exactly what those conditions are right now right and and we leave at the staff to work out you know the details of exactly how thank you and they've testified that they believe they comply if there if there may be a a very small change that's made to the Janitor's Closet or
something to to add a few square feet or something we're really not talking about substantive um uh changes to the plan at all it just wouldn't you know we wouldn't do that and that that's not called for here right if that was the
case I mean we we'd be recommending is come back with a modified plan y right uh any other questions for uh for the witnesses or Mr degia or
Mr Haynes we I don't think we ever saw uh Slide Five I could be wrong about that um but it's just the other the other side side yeah Power Station I guess or the parking lot to be fair
yeah that's um that's the we y nice okay so um again other other questions or do you have any other Witnesses Christopher no we don't have any Witnesses um Jerry
with regard to the uck Amendment um it's our understanding that we comply I know everybody's talking about it and that we meet those standards um in the condition if it is determined that for what ever reason there is some like
discrepancy um I would also like the opportunity to see if it would act actually be applicable because um you know I know these were all kind of done with the fourth round in mind and I think that given the approvals even though we may not have it constructed
yet and this not changing any of the real building at all or bul require you know basically nothing other than uh you know increasing the you know bettering the uh the environment I I think there's an
argument in case we're up against a wall there so I just want to have that flexibility um we We believe We comply and based on staff's review they think we will be able to comply with that 40 square feet but in case there is something out there that we're not aware
of that we would like the ability to work with staff or to determine you know through um you know coer whoever we need to to to make sure that um it's not applicable in our case so I'm not exactly sure how that works Christopher
so you work something out with st not quite there what rights we have the ability to take a look at it and see if we could find evidence that it would not apply or were exempt for some reason that's okay you're not talking about filing a lawsuit or anything like that no no no yeah yeah okay I mean that
that's that's yeah in other words we get if we hit a wall I don't want to be bound by something that that they that was designed for the fourth round and shouldn't really be applied here you know what I'm saying that's
all okay I I mean I do think it's a little bit problematic of who you would get to testify to the fact that the new rules don't apply to you Chris I mean would you go would you go to DCA would you go to
fair share housing I mean because maybe I don't know that there's any I don't know that there is somebody who has ultimate authority to make that determination yeah I I don't know David I just wanted to because like I said this is kind of an odd thing coming out
um and I don't want to get stuck um on something that may not be because of it's you know because of when it was when this was uh you know essentially approved and when that um came into being that it just gets us stuck and that the project can't move forward
that's all I just want the flex ability to make that argument and you know the staff could take a look at it if we can get clarification from Council affordable housing or you know the the agency that's that's um it's it's just
the the ability to make sure that um you know we have the ability to determine if it doesn't apply that we should be able to use that you know I guess it's not clear in the provision itself it's it's kind of
ambiguous the timing honestly yeah I thought you were indicating that if you could find something kind of in the legislative history which says this this is what it means but I think I think David has a good point that I don't think I'd be
uncomfortable going out and you soliciting an opinion from well you said I'm hoping yeah I'm hoping we never get there but it would be like a legislative history a review and see if can get some clarity you know honestly
that's what we would be doing we leave it to ultimately to the Judgment of staff and I guess it would be me as to whether that that that's valid um and affects the uh y the the um provision is is is applied I I think that's
reasonable but I think that's that's quite limited David are you comfortable with that or you not comfortable yeah I I I just I mean I think you're right J that I think you would have to be the Arbiter of
whatever evidence they come up with and you know I would encourage you to be uh cautious when you're when you're being the Arbiter because you know there's a these things do always seem to end up
in court somehow um you know so even if we got a letter from DCA saying that they they think the new rules don't apply to this project fair share could come in and object and last thing we want is to have affordable housing units
that we cannot take credit for so um yeah I I have no problem with Chris doing the leg work to try and document but I think I think it's going to be a heavy LIF yeah and document
within the context of the existing record of if you want to use it that way the the legislative and administrative record which created these rules and after a thorough review by staff I mean we're not talking about you know pick a
door I think the the staff review is uh um you know is mandated in the condition and if there are remaining questions or whatever something that can't be resolved uh by working with staff
that's when you might exercise another option that Mr meller gets involved with yeah and I think that's an important point to make Louise that's that's right that would only come into play at that point um Miss PE um this kind of follows through on that but I kind of wondered
you know at what point the changes can't be resolved and they have to come back here I I think staff has a lot of leeway but this is such a new area nobody really knows where the we what where the lines are so that if we're if we're talking about doing you know
inquiring to the state and relying on some un uh codified rule of some sort um when do they come do they ever come back here that's a good question I guess I had not seen it that way but I had seen the review really limited and they they
they they can't solicit an opinion by somebody else it's if whatever the legislative record is if they see something that says you know you're really misreading this provision and as Louise said that's at the end of the process going to try to
work out with staff all of this and I think it will be worked out my guess is it will be worked out um but if if there's something they not quite there and they find something that says you know I think you're misapplying this provision because of X and X is
something in the legislative administrative record that that's what we're talking about I don't think that's what at least I'm talking about I I I don't think we need to come back to the board but if it's a board pleasure can come back to the board but in those circumstances I could say yes you're
you're right it really doesn't apply here or we're we're misreading it misapplying it um and that would be the end of the story as I say I don't see making a mountain out of this yeah I'm not suggesting they necessarily come back but at the same
time I wanted you know I think the Board needs to be protected so that if there's really because because everything is so new here if this turns out to be a mountain and not just a mole hill um they should come back yeah and we do have to keep in mind of course that for something like this you can see the
other other developers in town having their ears wide open and if we do something like this here I I just don't want to set a precedent where everybody's going to come running in and and I I think it's important to note that if they do need to come back if
it's still a minor site plan with no variances it could well go to the site plan subcommittee uh and not to the full board is that um that may be I mean that may be but it still gets I know I just
wanted to yeah um David yeah I I I want to say I honestly think the only circumstances W in which it comes back is if they have to make significant changes to the plan in order to comply with the new hack rules that's that's
when it would come back and if it came back in that circumstance it would not be as a minor probably yeah because it would be significant changes so I think that either changes are going to be very minor and they will
comply or they won't comply but they will get good convincing evidence that they don't need to comply those two scenarios they don't come back and then the third scenario is the
rules do comply they they do apply they can't meet them by minor changes and they have to do a more significant redesign that's the circumstance in which they come back yeah that's correct yeah thank you um other questions or
comments anything further from you Mr degia nope that's all that's all from our end um so Jerry would you like to do we want a motion first and then go over uh no I guess do we open it up to
the public or not oh of course I'm sorry oh so sorry I'm Rusty we had to cancel our last meeting okay so we have uh 26 or excuse me no three people in the attendees room um if
any of you wish to and I see your hand went up Mr Cohen no no no it was a mistake okay if any members of the public wish to address the board um now is the time to virtually raise your hand
and Miss Philip will bring you over I am not seeing any hands go up going once going twice okay with that I will close the public comment portion of the meeting thanks again Carrie for keeping me
honest and um so now let's let Jerry quickly review the conditions we've discussed and we'll entertain a motion okay um we start with what we just talking about that um the applicant's going to work
with the staff to ensure that all of the hack reg requirements are met um they they would have the opportunity if after reasonable efforts by by both parties in good faith that they can't be
met they can if they can find something in the record indicating that the that a provision which is basically become problematical um is being misinterpreted by us we would have the the right to determine whether that's the case or not
and that would be me who has that right but that's very very limited um and then um onee extension to uh February 2026 all of the 2021 that's the prior resolution conditions are in
architectural architect updates the bike parking um as per the memo of Dan and Derek um more windows on the North elevation the applicant will work with staff um and they will do one
in for the unit where there's a kitchen on the North elevation but they do not oh I I'm I'm sorry Jerry I did I did not mean to command that I just was pointing out for the window that fit the the kitchen you know if you're the face
basically faces north um many people consider it an amenity to have a window to look out of I I I just was making that point I did not mean to to force that particular L I think it's appropriate to make the
condition theyve agreed to it okay right we we agreed to take a look at it I wanted to make sure we could do it it meets code and you know it works out um we can work with staff we agreed to take a look into it I I
can't confirm at this moment that we'll actually have Windows except for that one unit he said the one with the kitchen right that's it that's what I'm referring to yeah but there was availability in that room later you know okay okay T real yeah I I I just want to
remind people my original comment was that it was a suggestion not a proposed condition so um we're okay looking that was my intent we will look very carefully at it but we cannot commit now I I'm hearing two different
things from from the applicant on the one hand I thought it was definitive by Mrs catella that they could do that window in the unit where the kitchen face is on the back wall um but Mr haes is backing off that
correct correct you know I mean I I I I don't give much Credence to we'll think about it um we'll think about it that doesn't do anything for me um because it's it's meaning it's meaningless the reason why the design is the way is
as it is is because of um careful I think we've probably revised this design no fewer than 10 times uh so what you see is something that's the result of um three different Architects and many
hours of hard work to get it to where it is so there's a reason why it is the way it is I'm not exactly sure how we ended up with no windows on the North Face but again we will take a look at it we have heard your concern I can't guarantee you
that we'll make we'll put a particular window in a particular location if I haven't had the chance to take a very careful look again at the plan and make a considered decision and and part of the reason Jerry that I'm not comfortable making
this condition personally is that it doesn't have anything to do with the changes that are before us tonight you know it doesn't have anything to do with this minor site plan it's just a a comment that probably should have been
raised four years ago um but you know so I I'm appreciative of the applicant for looking at it but I I think it's it's not super appropriate as a condition okay I agree with that and I think the
point that you made David um is well taken that it it it would probably enhance those rooms in those apartments um and so you know maybe that's a something to for the applicant to factor in as
well okay um then just other conditions of this going through the the the memos um now uh Dan and Derek um we talked about the bike rack and the
the one by the uh out to Iraq they'll have to be uh moved um let me see where that is has the outdoor rack already been shifted in the plans not not in the ones we submitted but in the exhibit we
showed okay okay um talked about the architectural drawings and the bike rack calculation update that sign permit from the zoning department this is now with
Dan and Derek Page four um okay then uh be label 60 North to Lane um is that already been shown uh on the it's it's not in the plans but it's on the exhibit
right correct exhibit four yep okay um then um sorry M Mr mother sorry just uh going back to page three um we also just requesting as a condition of this one uh that the revised landscape plans be reviewed by
the municipal landscape architect um the prior landscape plans were already deemed compliant so we're just requesting that the condition be added for this one this this application as well sure thank you thank you [Music]
Dam and then um all conditions for the prior approval I think I said that already and the last condition that Dan and Derek had is compliance with the with uh uck with now hack okay and that's that's
it okay uh with those conditions enumerated I'm sorry um that the roof Dan mentioned earlier the roof needs replacement be replaced in
kind did just said it'll be replaced in kind and that's it and Jerry we're also requesting the onee extension of the uh preliminary final cite plane approval yeah he mentioned that up up top okay I
didn't catch that [Music] thanks okay and that's it um so with those conditions uh would someone like to make a motion may I make a motion as
proposed uh you may um uh Jack Jack will not be amongst the people voting though because we have a full Quorum tonight then may I make a motion in spirit yes thank you sir
absolutely Mr odonnell has his hand is that a motion Owen you're on mute I'm sorry yes uh I would like to make the motion including the uh conditions that Jerry outlined second that okay great um
motion to approve this minor site plan modification to the approved site plan and seconded by net bodimer um Miss Philip will you call the role Please Mr bodimer yes Miss capazo yes Mr Cohen yes
Mr Freda yes Mr mcowan yes Miss Nuka yes Mr odonnell yes Miss pearlmutter yes and Mrs Wilson yes motion carried thank you very much appreciate your time
thank you very much any uh any sense of when you'll be underway with this project or I guess it depends on Haack and other things but just out of curiosity the plan is late spring oh
fantastic okay well thank you again um much really appreciate it and [Music] um with that Mr Cohen being back in the fold how did you end the last meeting I I don't even
remember no Mr Mr odonald made the mo I believe thanks for covering for me Owen all I move to adjourn second thank you everybody favor thank you very much bye everyone thank
you see you next time I will not be at the next meeting of the planning board but I will see you at the meeting