Good evening and welcome. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Planning Board on Thursday, December 18, 2025. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time in place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the resolution of regularly scheduled
meetings of the planning board for February 2025 through January 2026. A copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 8th, 2025. Legal notice on the adoption of said resolution was published in the January
17, 2025 edition of the Princeton packet. Notice that this meeting also has been posted to the municipal website princetonj.gov/calendar. Notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton Planning Board will be held electronically via Zoom was
transmitted to the Princeton packet and the Times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday, January 17, 2023. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. Um during hearings on applications for development or master plan consistency,
which is what we have tonight, members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. Public comment is heard by the board after representatives have finished their presentations and have been questioned by planning board members and staff. When the time comes, those wishing to
comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star9. Oral comments will be taken in the order
in which hands were raised. We ask with respect that members of the public express your views in 3 minutes or less. A countdown clock on your screen will help speakers keep track of time. Please note that speakers who exceed 3 minutes will be interrupted.
Inappropriate public comment containing obscenity, hate speech, or relating to matters not before the board will be muted. Justin, would you call the role, please? >> Certainly, Madam Chair. Uh, and before I do that, I'll just note I'm emailing with Miss Pearl Mutter to get her uh
link. So, um, she will be joining us, but I don't think she's going to say that she's here yet because I don't see her. So, uh, to begin, Mr. Bodakimer >> here, >> Miss Capazolei >> here, >> Councilman Cohen,
>> Mayor Freda here, >> Mr. McGawan >> here. >> Miss Na >> sorry here. >> Mr. O'Donnell >> here. >> Miss Pearlmutter. >> Mr. Taylor
>> here. >> Miss Wilson Anderson >> here. >> And Chair Curry Wilson. >> Yes. Here. Thank you. >> You're welcome. And I see now Councilman Cohen is here. Welcome, David.
>> Thank you. >> Um, and we're we still are waiting for for Freddy Pearlmutter. Is that correct? >> That's correct. I don't see her name either in the panelists or the attendees, but I'll continue to work with her uh to make sure she could get in. >> Okay, great. Um, well, you'll be
juggling a few things. Uh, do we have any announcements from from board members or from staff? I don't have any announcements except that this is our last meeting of the year. Traa
>> um I >> to state the obvious >> I did want to announce that um Elizabeth Kim uh is retiring. She was she's the historic preservation officer and um I don't know Justin if you want to
announce the new officer. >> Certainly. Yeah, I'm happy to do so. Um, we have um a new historic preservation officer starting on January 5th. Um, so there's not going to be much time without a historic officer. Um, and her name is Sarah Quinnland. U, she
previously worked with the city of Jersey City and then with FEMA doing historic section 106 reviews. Uh, so we're really excited for her to start on January 5th um, and be able to hit the ground running with her background and experience. Uh, and we've also been
honoring Elizabeth all week and we'll continue to do so uh with a proclamation at council on Monday if anyone's interested in attending. >> Great. That's good. Um, no other announcements. >> Uh, Madam Chair, I have an announcement
which is kind of a subcommittee report. Um, so I guess I'll just say it now. Uh but uh I've been coordinating with the nomination committee um to get uh the nominations for the chair and the vice chair uh at our January 8th reorg meeting uh whatever the the date I
believe it's January 8th um the first meeting of the new year uh we will have those nominations um as the board considers a chair and a vice chair. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um I think we don't have other
subcommittee reports. Site plan committee was um cancelled. So good. Okay. Um on to minutes. Four sets of minutes. Uh the first being from February 20th, 2025.
Um I personally will abstain from these as I was absent. Um, I see Freddy Pearlmutter uh has a square on my screen now or technically a rectangle. Um, welcome Freddy. >> I get a picture. I'm sorry. I don't know
what's going on here. >> Okay, >> I got in. >> Okay. Um, so February 20 minutes. Anyone have um suggested edits or corrections? And if not, would someone like to move those?
So >> moved. Thank you, Mr. Bodheimer. Uh, who seconds? >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Julie Capazolei. Um, all in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Oh,
>> uh, any opposed? Thank you. Um, next are um minutes of the regular meeting of September 4th, 2025. Um any questions, corrections?
>> Yes, Madam Chair. Um there is one uh correction to make uh to the September 4th uh minutes that has been uh brought to our attention. Uh we had a um Schroingers uh Capazoli where she was listed as both uh present uh and absent. And at the risk of stretching the
metaphor to its breaking point, um we opened the box and she was in fact absent uh that that evening. So, uh, we will make that correction that, uh, Miss Capazolei was absent. Uh, we've I've double checked the, uh, the minutes and she's not listed anywhere else, uh, as,
uh, voting. So, uh, that's the only correction that has to be made. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Nathan. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> You crushed it. The box that is. Um, okay, great. With that correction, um, would someone like
to move the minutes of September 4th? >> I'll move the minutes with the correction. Thank you, M. Thank you, Miss Na. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Minutes of October
16, 2025. >> Questions, corrections? If not, would someone move them? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. McGawan. And a second. >> Second. >> Um, thanks, Mr. Bodyimer. All in favor, please say I.
>> I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Um, and the minutes of November 6th, 2025. Questions, corrections? Motion. >> I'll move to approve those.
>> Thank you, Miss Capazolei. And is there a second? >> So, second you. >> Thank you, Councilman Cohen. All in favor, please say I. I. I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Um abstensions are automatic if you were
absent. So um next up we have resolution um for the application from the trustees of Princeton University. This was a preliminary and final major site plan um for the Quantum Institute at Fitz
Randolph Road in Ivy Lane. Um it's at block 50.01 like lot 18.01 01 file P2525-605P. Any comments or um or other thoughts about the resolution?
Nothing. >> Okay. >> I I'm I'm feeling very quantum, so I'm going to move to approve. Thanks, Julie. Thank you, David. Great. Um, uh, Justin, would you call the role, please?
>> Certainly. And I have the following four members as not present, um, for that vote, so I won't call their names. Uh, Mr. Bodikimer, uh, Mayor Freda, Miss Nukea, and Miss Pearlmutter. >> Okay. >> And I think I have to abstain anyway.
Yeah, if you were there, you don't have to >> as well. Abstain from the case. Correct. Um, Ms. Capzolei, >> yes. >> Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawen, >> yes.
>> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Anderson, >> yes. and Chair Curry Wilson. >> Yes.
Um, thank you. And next up, we have an ordinance referral for master plan consistency. This is ordinance 2025-9, an ordinance by the Municipality of Princeton regarding tree removal permit requirements and amending chapters 22
and 10B of the code of the Township of Princeton, New Jersey, 1968. Well, this goes back a bit. Um, and we have, um, municipal engineer Deanna Stockton here to,
um, talk a bit about this ordinance referral since it's been in her wheelhouse. And then I think she may turn to Nathan Foot for a little bit more information. But Deanna, welcome
again. Uh, the floor is yours. Thank you, madam chair. Um, I'm going to start with just a little bit of a introduction and then review some of the changes that are proposed as part of this ordinance. Um, Princeton places a
high priority on its urban forest uh, which is exemplified in our designation as a tree city USA for over 29 years. In addition, the Princeton master plan guides. In addition to the Princeton
master plan, we are guided by a five-year community forestry management plan and follow the following two code sections related to preserving, enhancing, and maintaining this natural resource. Those code sections are
chapter 22 entitled trees and shrubs as well as chapter 10B subsection 227A entitled tree preservation protection and mitigation. Members of the Department of
Infrastructure and Operations, the Shade Tree Commission, and the Environmental Commission collaborated on the proposed ordinance before you tonight. and uh we are seeking your determination of its consistency with the master plan
memos in your agenda packet from both myself and Nathan Foot itemize the modifications included in this ordinance. Two primary goals of this ordinance are to better align
Princeton's tree and shrub regulations with that of DP's model tree removal replacement ordinance. And the second goal is to better align
um chapter 22 and chapter 10B to27A. In terms of the Department of Environmental Protection, the threshold for tree removal permits is being lowered in this ordinance to 6 in
diameter from the current 8 in diameter and the replacement table has been enhanced for a greater number of replacement trees for larger diameter removals. For chapter 10B227A,
the tree preservation and protection requirements as well as the replacement table are being redirected to chapter 22 rather than being independent of it. We have found that duplicating information like the
replacement table in both chapter 22 and 10B227A can result in errors such as the replacement fee not being updated in both locations. In addition to these changes, housekeeping edits are proposed to
codify how the municipality and the arborist have been managing the urban forest, the permit program, and the shade tree trust reserve. The ordinance would become effective on January 1st, 2026. Any applications that
have been submitted to a land use board and deemed complete prior to the state would not be subject to the new ordinance requirement. We are committed to protecting, enhancing, and maintaining Princeton's
urban forest and appreciate your finding that this proposed ordinance is consistent with the 2023 master plan. And with that, I'll turn it over to Nathan. >> Thank you, Deanna. Um, so as uh as Miss
Stockton has already uh touched summarized the uh the ordinance uh and the uh the changes that are being made to uh both chapter T uh 22 as well as um NB uh 227.
uh what I'll do is I will just focus on uh what is section 3 of uh my memorandum dated December 12th 2025 uh which is in regards to the master plan consistency. So uh I did review the ordinance as well as the master plan uh and I did find
that uh ordinance uh 2025-9 uh is substantially consistent with the 2023 Princeton master plan uh including several goals uh across multiple elements of the plan. Um, one of the key findings uh from the community input uh
in the introduction section of the plan uh is that the natural environment is a treasured asset and that's found on page nine of the uh the master plan document and uh existing trees uh that would be subject to those modifications that Miss Stockton uh has summarized uh are
important elements of that uh natural environment. Uh the vision statement uh in the master plan uh includes that Princeton will be livable uh quote sorry quote livable, beautiful, healthy and accessible end quote and uh quote sustainable, resilient and carbon
neutral end quote. And that's can be found on page 17 of the uh the master plan. uh and ensuring that existing trees with a uh diameter of breast height or DBH of six inches uh or uh and higher are maintained or replaced will enhance the
livability and beauty of Princeton. Uh and the effects of the canopy on reducing heat at ground level uh uh will help keep uh Princeton sustainable into the future. Um additionally, uh the ordinance the ordinance is substantially consistent uh with the following goals
uh identified in the master plan. I'll state what those goals are uh and then what the how they are consist how the proposed ordinance is consistent with those goals. Uh so land use goal number eight uh is to improve resiliency to climate change and natural hazards. Uh
the ordinance enhances tree protection and removal mitigation uh which helps reduce heat related problems at uh the ground level. Second, natural resource conservation goal number 52, coordinate uh preservation and development to accommodate population growth while
preserving and enhancing natural resources. Uh this ordinance enhances preservation of a natural uh resource that is trees while still allowing for mitigation for impacts of permitted development. Uh number three, uh natural resource conservation goal number 57,
manage nuisance and invasive species to protect native ecosystems and restore natural vegetation. Uh this ordinance uh includes provisions for preventing invasive species as identified by the New Jersey Invasive Species Strike Team uh from being used as replacement trees.
Uh next, natural resource conservation goal number 59. Preserve and enhance existing visual resources such as scenic corridors, treelined streets, historic landscapes, open agricultural land, and woodlands. Uh trees are important elements of the visual resources of the
municipality. Uh both directly as is noted in the uh the the goal itself treeline streets uh and indirectly uh they enhance the scenic corridors uh landscape the historic landscapes the agricultural land and of course obviously the woodlands. Um the
ordinance enhances tree protection and removal mitigation thus helping to preserve the visual landscape of as I mentioned corridor streets and woodlands. Uh and then finally, open space and recreation goal number 69 uh reduce the threats of the natural environment to the natural environment
uh from pests, disease, and non-native invasive species. And as I've already mentioned, uh the ordinance includes provisions for preventing invasive species from being used as replacement trees. Uh and so in conclusion, um the uh I do find that the uh ordinance is uh
substantially consistent with the master plan uh and recommend that the board find uh that substantial consistency uh with the master plan in their uh recommendation to council. And with that, Madam Council, uh sorry, Madam Chair, uh I will turn it back over to you.
>> Um thank you, Mr. Foot, and also Miss Stockton. That was um a great overview or more than an overview, some detail um and and you know I feel like I I agree having heard what you
said and read what you've written um that this is substantially consistent with the master plan and also it feels like it's um it it implements you know important pieces of the master plan that that a lot of us care about
deeply. So, thank you for your work on it and thanks also to the shade tree committee. I don't mean to be getting ahead of myself, but um Mr. Cohen. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make one minor comment that uh Deanna and Nathan didn't touch on in their reports, which is um
an explanation of the component of the ordinance where they're changing the um uh applicability of funding from the shade tree trust fund. One of the changes that's being made is that it no
funding no longer has to be restricted to public lands. And this is something I'm particularly excited about because I'd like to see the trust fund used to incentivize replanting of trees that have come down on private property in
particular like dead trees, ones that would not otherwise have to be replaced like emerald uh ash uh ash trees that were damaged by emerald ashborers. So, um, I'm just part, you know, from both
from a storm water management and from a more general environmental, uh, standpoint, I'm really excited about that change, though it's though it's minor a minor part of the overall ordinance. >> Um, thank you for that. That's great to
know. Um, Jack Taylor, >> first of all, Nathan, let me congratulate you again. it. The ordinance is collaborative. It's comprehensive. It's impressive. It's impressive as in detail, impressive in its substance, and it's also
impressive in the way you've explained it. Let me let me just go for a moment to the 60% cover comment. It caught my attention that our forestry cover is about 60% that it over recent years has
reduced five. Do we as a community have any analytical basis or relationship to translate the recommendations before us to the possible impact or the range of the impact on staying at say 60 or do we
have a different target? It's the relationship between the the documentation and any experience we have with the documentation's implementation. >> Can I respond? >> Yeah. Is that
>> Yes. Thank you. Um so you you've touched on a very important topic especially to our shade tree commission um of we have had loss to our canopy and as we
continue to permit trees um to be taken down even though there's the replacement the canopy takes a significant amount of time to regenerate. to replace what is lost.
>> Um and so we are also um I was going to to mention this at the end. We are also on Monday night presenting to council uh the community forestry management plan
um that we collectively worked on this year. Um it's a five-year plan that works in conjunction with these ordinances and um the master plan, but it sets out some different goals and objectives and action items to work on.
And and that is one of the canopy maintenance and enhancement has been a big topic of conversation. And um while we have indicated some
action items about increasing our um number of trees planted on public lands, we struggled to really um get to the heart of the matter that
you brought up of of the the data analysis and what does this translate to? and and to go even further of establishing goals related to the canopy rather than
just tree replacement. Um so it it is something that I imagine that the shade tree commission will be working on um over the next couple of years in in response uh to the work that we've done on the community forestry management
plan. >> Yeah. Thank you, Deanna. Thanks for the question, Jack. Justin. >> Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And I just like to add to that um we've continued uh to improve our GIS uh mapping
capabilities. Um the municipality now has a GIS analyst. Uh we're also working on creating these different 3D mapping um utilizing these softwares and software and things like that. And um uh we're looking to see how we can uh
factor in uh things like our tree cover to get these numbers that that you're asking for because we're certainly I think we heard loud and clear during the master plan approval process uh that people wanted data in many different ways. Um and trees certainly were one of
them. So by continuing to uh uh thankfully the council continues to fund us for GIS mapping and sees the importance of it. Um, and uh, I think as we continue to create these systems, uh, we will be able to utilize them for things like that. Um, that being said,
we have to, um, uh, you know, there's a lot of background work we're catching up on. Uh, we actually, uh, we just put out a simple map of whether you're in Princeton or if you're somewhere else with a Princeton address. Um, so that that's the kind of software on the other
end of of very simple but very practical. uh and we're looking to continue to find ways that it's uh you know very data heavy and and able to track those things. >> Thanks for adding that Justin. That's actually was going to be one of the next
things I asked GIS to work on is >> updating um our tree inventory and um looking at what analytics we can do with it. >> Yep. Great. Excellent. Councilman Cohen and
then Jack Taylor again. >> Oh, you okay? And then Claudia Wilson Anderson. Go ahead, David. >> Yeah, I just wanted to make the point that, you know, it's extremely difficult to regenerate our canopy
uh just by planting street trees. you know, we we do try to replace them when they die, but if you're just planning on public lands and and we're actually making some efforts. We've gotten some grants for replacing trees that were
lost, you know, in some of the super storms in mountain lakes and um some of the trees that have been lost, you know, again, by due to climate change from the infestations and and and uh disease and
stuff. But part of the the challenge is to replace trees that are being lost on private land. And that's why I'm just referring back to my excitement about the possibility of incentivizing planting on private land with public
funds because that's got to be an important piece of trying to restore the canopy. You know, this is I'm relating this backs to Jack's question. So really important what Deanna was saying, what
Justin was saying about about how we measure the canopy, but it's not just about how we measure it. It's about where can we replace it and uh we have to be focusing on public and private lands in order to really meet that
challenge. Um that is it's so good that this is in you know that we're focusing on this. I it's incredibly important. Um, Claudia, >> uh, most of what I wanted to say I think
David just said, but I did want to echo that I think it's incredibly important that there is some kind of a partnership with the private sector so that private people feel that they have a part in this. I know the Arbor Society was
giving out native trees um downtown maybe a year or two ago and however we can encourage the private sector to be involved especially if there's financial ability to be supported in in this effort. Uh there's a lot of land in
private hands that are dealing with uh diseases with the ash bores on the ash trees but also the maple trees too. there there's new diseases that are affecting those trees and those trees are coming down. Um so again I think >> trees red oaks
>> I mean a lot of stress on big old trees. Yep. >> There's a focus for the private sector also. So I just wanted to echo support for that. >> Thank you Justin. >> Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. And I just uh at the risk of going too far a field
in this conversation, um I do want to add on to one thing that Councilman Cohen said, and one of the tools that we can use to keep the c canopy as it is, and the um the magnificent trees that are already uh uh grown um is through
different types of tools like areas in need of redevelopment, which you'll hear about in a little bit, and redevelopment plans where we can really um uh figure out exactly what we want rather RA than just use the blunt tools of zoning, uh, where we're basically responding after
the fact rather than telling someone, you know, no, you're keeping that those trees, that area, that sort of thing. And in exchange, you're going to build a little differently than you would the the way the underlying zoning would lie. So, I just wanted to throw that out there as well. >> Thank you, Deanna.
>> And I'll add on to uh what Justin was saying as well. Um, one of the big focus points that we would hope that we can work with uh, planning board on is to
let applicants know that there really is um, uh, an imperative need for them to help us preserve the canopy. you know, to to Justin's point, look at different ways of developing their property so
that they can keep the tree resources that are there. We've talked a lot about replacements. Um, but we really would love to get to a point where we're not talking about replacements. We're talking about creative ways to design
within a building envelope to keep um as much of the canopy as we possibly can. um we understand it's private property, but if if you know at a certain point people who come to Princeton and want to develop understand that the importance
of our trees to us um and it's early on at a concept phase, then we don't we then we talk less about replacements. >> Yeah, really important point. Thank you. Mhm.
>> Uh other comments, questions, thoughts? If not, would someone like to make a motion uh regarding the consistency of this ordinance with the master plan?
And what we usually do is recommend not only consistency, although the standard is actually >> consistent, >> not substantially inconsistent, but saying it's consistent is fine. And we usually recommended the u that the ordinance be adopted as well.
>> Yes. Thank you. Thanks, Jerry. >> Uh Mr. Taylor. >> Yeah, just a quick practical question. Maybe Jerry, this is a question for you. The word that always legally makes me uncomfortable is substantially. I can
understand consistent. But if we add the word substantially, it suggests that something isn't in compliance and raises the question, if not, is it important? If it is, are we doing something about it? And I'm being perhaps legalistic.
Maybe I'm being overly practical, but the word substantially ought to be given a moment's pause and thought about. >> Yeah. And uh that's a very good point. And there might be a case, and I'm sure there will be cases, I can't think of
any in the past, where there where there were some inconsistencies, but it was but the ordinance before us was substantially consistent. That's not this case, though. And I think I'd be certainly very comfortable and would recommend to the board that the board just say it's consistent with the master
plan. >> Okay. Um with all of that said, would someone like to make a motion finding this ordinance consistent with the master plan and recommending adoption? >> I would be pleased to make a motion um
finding this ordinance consistent with the master plan and recommending adoption. Thank you, Paula Binuka. Is there a second? Thank you, Miss Wilson Anderson. Um, uh, Justin, would you call the role, please? >> Yeah, just a quick
>> Is is Claudia able to vote on this? Do we have so many people here that I don't mean to interrupt and maybe that's not what you were going to say. >> No, that that's what I was going to ask. Um, >> okay. Claudia will not uh unfortunately be voting on this as an alternate. So uh
I'm not sure if she could make the motion. >> Okay. >> I see Mr. Councilman Cohen's hand up too. Thanks anyway, Claudia. So seconded by um David Cohen. Uh Justin, would you call the role, please? >> Mr. Bodheimer,
>> yes. >> Miss Capazolei, >> yes. >> Councilman Cohen, >> yes. Mayor Freda. >> Yes. >> Mr. McGawan. >> Yes. >> Miss Na.
>> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Miss Pearlmutter. >> On behalf of the Environmental Commission and myself. Yes. >> Uh and Chair Curry Wilson. >> Yes. >> Motion passes.
>> Thank you. Um, next we have a hearing on um, uh, to determine whether certain real property at 1 and 10 Franklin Avenue and specifically lots 2,26 and 27 and lot 21104
on the tax map of Princeton meets the requirements for and should be designated under the local redevelopment and housing law as a non-condemnation redevelopment area. Um, Mr. Mueller, can you speak to jurisdiction?
>> Yeah, boy has jurisdiction notice is is proper. >> Great. Thank you. Um, is it important that I read that whole paragraph? I sort of cherrypicked. There's a whole couple of paragraphs instead of sort of
the typical title of the >> I don't think it's I don't think it's important. I think >> I think I said enough. >> Yeah. And that's going to be the subject of of description and and discussion. >> Yes. Yes. Precisely. So, okay. Thank
you. Uh Justin, can you kick it off here? >> Yes. Uh and I see Mr. Taylor's hands up as well. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Jack. Did you have a question? >> Just a a quick question. I read in the document that the council had requested
a designation regarding non-ddamnation or for development and non- condemnation apparently means uh eminent domain and I just wonder Jerry I don't understand the nature of how this proposal involves
eminent domain versus development. >> Yeah, it does not involve eminent domain. Non-condemnation implies that this is um uh to be established as a redevelopment area without um any
intention of uh a taking. >> Did I? >> Yeah. And not giving >> Is that right, Jerry? >> Yeah. And not giving any authority to the municipality um to to undertake eminent domain. It used to be that when there was a redevelopment area that
there was a a right of eminent domain and there was legislation adopted several years ago saying the governing body has to say at the outset and the planning board in its recommendation has to say whether it it's a a condemnation
um designated area or non-condemnation. And obviously the decision here was that it would not be condemnation uh um area. >> I will just offer as a commentary that we own all of the property. So there's
there would be no possible reason to have it involve condemnation. >> Yeah. >> I simply wondered about the reference >> official. Good. Thank you. Um, okay, Mr. Leco.
>> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Jared, do I need to be sworn in because it's a hearing? >> Yeah, if you could if you raise your hand. Is there anybody else from No, no other staff, is it? >> Uh, Michael Davis is here from Haron Grul. >> We can do two for one. >> Sure.
>> Raise your right hand. So, we're affirming the testimony about to give you the truth. >> Yes, I did. >> Could you both say your full names for the record? >> Sure. Justin Leco, L KO. Michael Davis, D- Av. >> Thank you. >> And thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to
keep my remarks brief um so I don't steal Michael's thunder. Um but uh I do just want to bring up um that these three parcels uh that you're hearing about tonight as a potential area in need of redevelopment. Uh you might some
of the board members that have been on for a couple years might remember this exact request from four years ago uh December or uh earlier in 2021. Um the board was uh uh the council did request that the board hold a hearing uh on uh
an area in need of redevelopment for these three parcels. Um the board found that they met the definition of an area need of redevelopment. Um but then the council didn't do the final step at that time um of uh uh
what is it >> designating designating yeah >> agreeing with the designation essentially. Um so that final part never happened. Um, as a result, the council a few months back directed the board um to to basically hold the hearing again um
as more or less an update uh of that 2021 report uh which was also done by the planning firm Heron Grul. Uh so you'll see even the document looks pretty similar um but everything has been updated in it including the date which is December 4th of this year. Um,
and with that being said, we have Michael Davis, a professional planner uh from Heron Grul here who has worked on that study. Um, and I without further ado, I'll hand it over to him and I'm happy to answer any questions um after his presentation of uh the report that he authored.
>> If I could just give 30 second seconds on how the process works. It starts with the governing body in terms of an area development. They make a recommendation. they they make a request to the planning board to determine whether an area um is
is in need of redevelopment. It meets all the at least one of the criteria and Michael will get into all of that. Um and then the planning board would do an investigation, which is what we're doing right now. And if it recommends that it meets the criteria, the recommendation
goes back to the governing body and they would have to accept it. But the governing body is the one that makes the final determination. Thank you, Jerry. >> Thank you, Mr. Mueller, Mr. Leco, and Madam Chair. My name is Michael Davis. Um, thank you for the introductions
there. I'm a senior planner with Higher and Grill Associates, and the background there um pretty much is filled in uh essentially this report was completed uh in 2021 based on the governing body's recommendation to the planning board. And now essentially what has happened is a few years have passed that
recommendation never became a designation of a redevelopment area and now the report has been updated um with uh updated information from 2021. Um so just as uh as a by way of background um there have been three site visits
conducted with this study. There was two site visits conducted for the first draft of this for the first iteration of the study um in March 12th 2021 and May 21st 2021. and our most recent site visit was conducted on November 26,
2025. Um, we were able to enter a few uh two of the units at the second site visit and were able to enter units at the third site visit as well. So, we do have some images later in the plan um in the in the document that explain the conditions inside some of these units.
Um, so just to describe the properties as a whole, uh, all three properties are located with their frontage along Franklin Avenue between Witherspoon Street and Jefferson Road. Um, across the street, directly across the street from these properties is the Avalon at Princeton development. Um, the Princeton
SE cemetery is located right behind lots 26 and 27. Um, just to kind of get a geographic location of where we're at. The existing zoning of the properties, lots 26 and lots 27 are within the AH6 affordable housing zone. Um, and there's
a little more detail in the report about that and I can discuss that as needed. But um the lot then the remaining third lot two is within the R4A zone. Um it's important to note that all three lots have an affordable housing overlay over them. That is the AH6
overlay zone. Um and just generally the the area is surrounded by the mix residential retail office district, the residential business district um and R3, R4, and R8 zones. There's a lot of zoning districts that above these properties. Um so just a a quick
explanation of the lots. Uh lot 27 is the existing parking lot. This parking lot was ser uh constructed to serve the former hospital. Um there are two entrances this parking lot. There's really not much else to the site. Um there previously were ticket gate ticket
gates and booth arms that were there. Um they are no longer there. Um >> Davis I'm so sorry to interrupt. Um, can somebody share a screen and and show these uh >> Oh, yeah. I can pull >> show these lots on the screen for people
to I think we all know the property that we're talking about, but for but for us uh anybody who's not intimately familiar with it and of course um for the people who are attending uh who are not panelists, it's very helpful. Thank you so much.
>> Can you see that? >> Uh yes. Can you um zoom in some there? >> There you go. So, this is the just blank lots uh with the tax tax uh lines on there. And then this is an aerial image, which is probably a little bit helpful,
too. Um would you prefer the aerial for the discussion? >> And Michael, um if this is a fresh exhibit, you should indicate that if this is >> this is the report out of Okay, if you could just state where it comes from, that would be great. >> Yep. Yep. This is page nine of the area
in need of study dated December 5th. December 4th, sorry. Um, so this is an aerial image displaying the property. So this is lot 27 that I'm circling with my cursor over here. Um, this is an existing parking lot. You can see that there are dividers here. Uh, this
parking lot was previously separated. Um, it had the the hospital vacated in 2012. Um and since that time this lot has been used for various activities including a farmers market, municipal parking. Um and uh at one point it was
used as overflow for school parking. Um so it's it's been utilized for a lot of different parking reasons, but of late there have not been any it has not really seen much use. Uh the property is also owned by the municipality of Princeton. All three properties are owned by the municipality of Princeton
as previously mentioned. Um, so lot 26, as we move here to the center of the property, um, lot 26 is known as Franklin Terrace. This is a 10 unit multifamily residential development that was constructed in 1938. Uh, there are three single family buildings located on
the property that sort of form a U-shape and a little courtyard that fronts onto Franklin Street. Um, uh, there's a little parking area to the rear back here. Um, but this this development is vacant. uh it has not been occupied um
and site visits demonstrated that um along with uh additional photos that are in this report. So lot two continuing to move. Um lot two is also owned by the municipality of Princeton. Uh this also is a 10-unit
residential development. Its layout is a little bit different just based on the way the lot is shaped. Um but it still consists of three separate buildings uh and 10 units total in that project. Um, so that's pretty much the summary of
the properties themselves. Um, overall, uh, I think that a lot of a lot of people are aware that there's really hasn't been much happening here, uh, of late. And essentially what this what the board is tasked with doing and what the board did in 2021. Um, and I'm going to
scroll down in this report and I will bring us to the redevelopment criteria, uh, which are on page 21. Um so essentially the the local redevelopment housing law establishes criteria uh by which uh the planning board evaluates
properties and if the properties meet one of the criteria they don't need to meet more than one all they need to meet is a minimum of one um then the area can be determined in need of redevelopment. So just quickly I'll go through the criteria. Uh the generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary,
dilapidated or obsolescent or possess any of such characteristics or are so lacking in light, air or space as to be conducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. The discontinuence of use of a building or buildings previously used for commercial retail,
shopping malls or plazas. That one doesn't really apply here because we really don't have any commercial uses. uh land is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority or redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of 10
years. This isn't unimproved vacant land. So that doesn't really qualify here. Uh criterion D areas with buildings or improvements by which improvements which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or
design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, delletterious land use or obsolete layout or any combination of these factors are detrimental to the health health safety, health, morals or welfare of the community. That one does
apply here. Um, and I'll get into more detail on that later. Uh, E, a growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of title, diverse ownership of the real properties therein. Again, these are all owned by the municipality of Princeton.
So, title and ownership don't really come into play here as a redevelopment criteria. Um F areas in excess of five continuous acres where buildings or improvements have been destroyed, consumed by fire, demolished or alter altered by the action of storm, fire,
cyclone, tornado. Again, there hasn't really been a sort of natural impact, natural disaster impact on these properties. Um so F doesn't apply either. Um G applies to uh urban enterprise zones, which Princeton does not qualify as, so that one doesn't
apply either. and H is a very general criterion um that planners don't typically like to hang their hat on. Essentially, this one uh states that the designation of the delineated area is is consistent with smart growth principles.
Um this has been relatively untested in court. Um and hanging your hat on smart growth as as a sole redevelopment criteria is not really um something that you see too often. So H doesn't really come into play here either. Um so in
looking at those redevelopment criteria um the that we have determined that all three of the properties uh are recommended for designation under criterion D. um that specifically discusses areas with buildings or improvements by which reason of
dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design all that. Like essentially basically these built um are detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the community because of the way that the
buildings are laid out, the way that the buildings are designed. There's uh a lack of ventilation in the properties. there's a lack of um even the square footage of the properties as I'll get into in more detail um uh is is contributes all to the recommendation
that D uh criterion D applies here uh lots 2 and 26 which are the properties I will go back up to my map now that I'm going to start talking about these I am back up to page eight here just to show the breakdown of the three lots
Um lots two and 26 which contain the residential properties also qualify under criterion A the generality of buildings are substandard unsafe unsanitary dilapidated or obsolescent or possess any of such characteristics or
are lacking in light air or space as to be conducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. Um essentially the the properties this this discusses that the properties aren't really uh safe to live in. Um and there are specific points within the report as I will
discuss um that point to those qualities. Um so how does lot 27 qualify? Lot 27 is a service parking lot previously served the hospital which has not been operating for about 9 years at least at least 9 years um leaving the
lot obsolete and consistently parked well under capacity as can be seen in the aerials in the report. Uh the site is surrounded by single family dwellings. cemetery multif family structures with their own parking lot. So there really is little need for this parking lot. Um and I think that uh
recent site visits have shown that there really uh is not much activity in this parking lot. Uh the parking lot has not been maintained. Uh as you can see in the report, there are pictures of of pavement under disrepair. Uh wheel stops are kind of scattered around the
property. uh the parking gates that were previously there are just kind of looks like they maybe were just removed and there's a little some wiring hanging out of the ground. So essentially the property is just just has lack of improvements and and lack of maintenance. Uh additionally the property is
characterized by excessive imperous coverage. Uh the zoning allows for 80% impervious coverage where the site currently exists at near 100%. uh in discussions with uh former land use engineer Jim PCEL uh they confirm he confirmed that there's no storm water
management catch basins on site or infrastructure to address any of the storm water runoff from this property. So essentially all this just runs onto adjacent property. All the storm water from this runs off to adjacent properties with nothing to address it.
Um so essentially all of these qualities uh leave this property obsolete. Lots 26 and lot two uh I will discuss together because they essentially follow the same criteria. Um they are almost identical developments with the
exception of the parking that exists on lot 26 that lot 2 doesn't have. Um as well as the layout of the buildings. Uh lot 26 has more of a U-shape while lot 2 just sort of all the buildings exist in a row. Um, so lot 26 is developed with
Franklin Terrace, as I discussed, a 10-unit residential development that was constructed in the ' 40s. Uh, the de, uh, the units are identical in size and layout as well as on lot two. So, all the units end up measuring roughly the same. Um, one of the important notes
that's indicated in the report is that each apartment measures 4 roughly 489 square ft. Um, and consists of one or two bedrooms, a kitchen, living space, lin closet, and a bathroom. The unit size that these units exist at
does not even qualify for uh housing more HMFA housing mortgage and finance agency or unified housing affordability controls. These are standards basically these these are programs where um existing units are taken and rehabbed uh
reconstructed um and improved upon. The minimum requirement for those programs is 600 square f feet for a one-bedroom unit and 800 ft² for a two-bedroom unit. Um, and then as for the unified housing affordability controls, this is the neighborhood preservation balanced
housing rules. Their rules indicate that the minimum bedroom size is 550 ft for studios and 600 for one-bedroom units. So the size of the units doesn't even allow them to be in any way rehabilitated through any of these existing programs that do support these
kind of uh obviously there's a lot of existing housing units um that are getting older and these programs are intended to provide opportunities to reconstruct housing and not remove housing and these units don't even qualify for that. So that just adds to
the fact that they're obsolete. Um and and really the redevelopment is is is benefit here. Uh additionally, there are kitchen outlets that do not have ground fault circuit interrupterss, GFCIs, uh which are pretty which are standard
uh per the n national electric code that they need to be required in all bathrooms and kitchens. So just adding to the unsafess of the property. Uh the units are not ADA accessible um which is a requirement for units especially affordable units of late um there's a
lot of requirements for accessibility um signs of disrepair were noticed as you can see in the report there are images throughout that demonstrate conditions of uh crumbling ceilings, cracked walls, rotted baseboards, mold um and several other conditions that
just demonstrate that the properties have been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. Um so overall uh the the the area need of redevelopment study that has been on file with the town with the municipality uh concludes that all three lots can be
designated under criterion D and lots 2 and 26 can be designated under criterion A and we recommend that the municipal council and planning board take the necessary steps to designate the study area as an area in need of redevelopment. non- condemnation area in
need of redevelopment to be specific. So, if there's any other questions, I'd be glad to answer from the board. Um, >> thanks. >> Otherwise, that summarizes it. >> Okay. Um, board members, have you got um
questions for Michael Davis or Jerry or anyone? >> Not me. Um, Mr. Cohen. >> Yeah. I just wanted to um offer from the
perspective of council, part of the reason that we're looking to update this is that there are some impediments to funding of the planned redevelopment that was intended for this site. That may require
subdivision and phasing of the redevelopment. and that would be facilitated by having the redevelopment designation. So, I just wanted to let the board know what the sort of the intent behind the request was. uh it
doesn't really play into the decision of whether it qualifies as as in as an area in need of redevelopment, but you know, in case uh members were concerned,
>> what you know what what we have in mind. Um that's really all we're we're doing is trying to facilitate the funding of the project that was already um sort of envisioned for this property from four years ago. >> And and enabled by the zoning that was
put in place at that time. >> Good good context. Thank you. Um if there are no questions from other questions or comments from board members um
I will open the public um comment portion of the hearing. Um if you are here there are eight uh now 10 uh members of the public in um in the attendees uh room if you will.
Uh any of you attending who would like to address the board um at this time, please virtually raise your hand and we will bring you over to the um participants or panelist um room if you
will and Mr. Muller will swear you in uh and ask for your name and um ask you to spell your name and then we'll let you talk. So I see that Anita Garaniac Garoniac I hope you're I'm pronouncing your name
properly. Uh has been brought over. So if you would uh good unmute yourself, thank you and activate your camera if you can. Um and then again I'll just say anybody else who wishes to speak go ahead and raise your hand now virtually
and we'll bring you o over in the order in which hands are raised. Hi. >> I don't see any other hands going up. Miss Goniac. >> Hi. Um, I don't have a camera. I'm on a desktop. So, there's no camera here to for me to activate. So,
>> okay. Um, well, you'll just have to promise that you're raising your right hand when Mr. Mer asks >> my right hand. >> Okay. >> Swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. >> I do. >> So, it's one. Could you please state your full name and spell your last name?
>> Anita Garoniac. G A R O N I A K. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Go right ahead. >> Okay. Um just a few things. I have two questions, but I did want to make a comment and well, I actually have three
questions. Um regarding the the description of lot 27 as not in use. Um, not to be pedantic, but it has been in use. And of course, it's not in use now because the entrance
to the lot is blocked. So, you can't really genuinely say the lot is not used anymore. It's underused or not used at all when you've blocked the entrance to it. But prior to it being blocked, it was been a staging area for all the work that's gone on in Princeton last summer
and be before that. and it was used by the high school and that lot was full when they were parking there. So, just for the record, the lot's not in use now because the entrances to the lot are blocked.
um to my questions. Um one the major question is and this goes to my other question regarding what is envisioned which David Cohen mentioned. Um I the neighborhood is not sure what is envisioned. There was some meetings
four years ago but if there is a plan it hasn't been presented to the neighborhood. My question here is what will the neighbors be allowed to or be participating in what is envisioned for the lot? Uh we saw a lot of things
several years ago pre- pandemic I think or maybe during the pan pandemic about the lot but um there were many things that were presented but none that we know were decided upon and the neighbors who participated at that time some of those
neighbors aren't here anymore and there are new neighbors here who are asking questions about what's going on. So we would like to know that if we are participating in that design and that would be presented to us. Um my second question has to do with the previous um
people living in the affordable housing units. But uh if you want to answer that one first then I'll I'll finish up with that question afterwards. >> If you could if you could pose uh each of the three questions and then we'll we'll address them.
>> Okay. So the one is what is envisioned? When will we see what's envisioned? Is the are neighbors going to be participating in the design? >> Right. We got that one. I'm sorry. I don't mean to I just don't want to end up cutting you off. So, >> right. And that's one and two. And then
um the previous uh people who lived in the housing in the um affordable housing units, will they be given apartments in the new is that guaranteed that they'll be giving apartments in the new built uh
apartments on the lot. >> Those are my >> Okay. All right. Thank you for those. um probably the best person to speak to these answer. Well, I I uh I won't judge
who's the best person. Um Justin, you've got your hand up, so you can start and um uh Mr. Cohen may want to weigh in as well as Mayor Freda. Justin. >> Yep. I was thinking the exact same thing, Madam Chair. Um and I'll just start with to the first question um of
when uh the neighbors will be able to provide input. Um there will still need to be at a minimum a redevelopment plan uh put on this site to essentially do anything with this um area need designation. Um that goes through the
planning board. You it's introduced at council. It comes to the planning board for a review of a of compared to the master plan like you saw earlier with the shade tree one. Um and then it would go back to the council um for uh the
plan to be approved. Um and after that there would still need to be site plan review um at the planning board uh on these specific um uh uh development uh per all of our state rules where we'll
have things on file, we'll have public comment um all that uh that normally happens at the planning board. Um those are the two things at a minimum uh that are required to happen uh before anything is built here. Um and then secondly um the question on the previous
tenants um I believe when the uh uh housing authority sold the property to the municipality or at least before then um the tenants were relocated to other housing authority properties. Um there's different uh differences in the um uh
criteria for uh the tenants of housing authority properties and the tenants of the properties that count towards our fourth round Mount Laurel requirement. So I don't believe there there's a guarantee that can be made that those same tenants will be relocated back to this site from their current um homes at
other housing authority properties, but they may be eligible to apply. Um, thanks for that, Justin. And so, so the question of what's envisioned will become clear when the redevelopment plan
um comes into sharper focus. Is that Mr. Cohen? >> Yeah, I I just wanted to uh at least partially answer that question. the task force that worked on design guidelines for this site. Those
design guidelines were provided to the developer who is with with whom the municipality has a a development agreement for the site and it's still the same developer. So we're not we
haven't changed horses. We're not working with somebody else and they have you know undertaken to incorporate uh the recommendations of that task force into the design for the site. So,
I don't think there's any um uh there hasn't been any discussion about redoing the recommendations or opening a new process, but the process that was done four years ago is still
very relevant um to the to the design of what's going to be going on the site here. And um beyond that um I would just say that it would be great you know for folks who are interested to come to
council actually because council will be sort of um managing the the redevelopment process. planning board is just being asked to opine on whether these sites qualify
uh under the criteria for an area need of redevelopment. The planning board doesn't really have any um input into how the actual redevelopment process will go. So that's more a pressure point for for council than for the planning
board. Now, now David, under the local housing and redevelopment law, um the governing body can ask the planning board to do the redevelopment plan, but the council is going to do that in this case, correct? >> I believe so. We we have been doing that
through the third round, and I think that's uh this is actually still a third round site. So, I anticipate the council will be managing that. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. And David, are those um design guidelines and the other um
documents that I think you referenced um available on on the website? I I would not know exactly where to go to find them. >> Uh I'm going to ask actually bounce that back to Justin because I'm not 100% sure
>> and I'm not 100% sure either. I was actually right when I started and it was before we migrated to this new website um uh framework. Um so I would have to double check that. Um but if they're not I'll see if I could round them up and add them to the planning department and
the planning board page. >> Yeah, I've got a copy of them just in. So >> Okay. Excellent. So, if the board tonight finds um uh or
you know recommends adoption um of the area in need of redevelopment designation, um it goes back to council. Council will act on that um probably earlyish in 2026. Do you
anticipate? I don't mean to put anybody on the spot. I'm just for the for the benefit of the public and when they might expect to see the background information and understand when approaching council uh you know what what kind of timing
makes sense that might be helpful. >> I think that is true. Uh I I can't guarantee it but I think early 2026. >> Okay. Um, Miss Na,
>> um, I just wanted to ask if, uh, either Justin, um, or perhaps David could just remind us of how many um, units are are foreseen for the site under the third
round plan. I It's been months since I I looked at that. So if you could just give us and I think that might be helpful for the attendees as well. >> Agreed. >> Sure. So this site was carried through from the third round to the fourth round
plan because we we still need to uh finish our third round sites and I think this is the only one that we haven't. Um and in our fourth round housing plan, it mentions 80 units of workforce housing and 80 units of afford designated affordable housing. um which tracks with
um uh what we have in the existing affordable housing overlay six uh that's on these sites. >> Okay. So workforce housing um would then be for municipal employees, school district employees. Is that what is
meant by workforce housing? No, I'll >> Yeah. There's a specific definition of it um uh as a percentage of the area median income. Um I don't know that off the top of my head, but it's not the same as the designated affordable, the
um low, very low, and moderate income. It's somewhere above that. >> It's a bit higher than moderate. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But it's a fixed range. It's not a separate scale, >> right?
>> Like we have the the low moderate. Yeah. Yeah. >> Scale. And it's it's a >> it's the next higher it's sort of the next >> the next higher one on that scale. >> Right. >> And I will say I don't think that we have
uh as people may be familiar affordable housing has to be affirmatively marketed in like a threecount area. We can't reserve it for >> right >> you know residents of Princeton or employees in Princeton and I would
expect that the workforce housing is the same or or worse in the sense that we may not have any control over you know who lives there other than what the price range would be.
And and just to follow up in in the same vein, this would count as 100% affordable or it would >> 50% >> the workforce the workforce housing does not contribute to our
>> uh COA obligation or our our obligation. >> Yeah. Affordable housing obligation. >> But and does that count as below market rate? It is it is below market rate and it it has to do with what kinds of funding are available. There are
>> okay >> special there are some special streams of funding that are supposed to be designated for the workforce housing but it doesn't count towards our unit count for um like I like I said for the
affordable housing. >> Okay. >> And in addition to the funding the the idea also is these people who otherwise could afford this work forward housing are not going to be able to afford certainly in Princeton and many other places normal
market rate housing. So, it's trying to it's trying to hit a niche that's not being served. >> Missing middle is kind of a term that's been used a lot and I think is pretty accurate. Missing middle where you we're building affordable units and they're building really nice units but nothing
in between. >> Yeah, exactly. I would argue missing middle is about housing types, but I don't want to get into that right now, but just because I knew that was gonna happen. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> that's okay. We don't have time for that, but
um thank you. That's helpful. And I think that was also helpful for the previous um attendee who asked. >> Yes. and also um to her question about the um public involvement and neighborhood involvement
in addition to what Mr. Cohen pointed out um about you know coming to council the different steps that happen of course at at planning board as Mr. Leco um outlined the redevelopment plan, site plan review, those are all public
processes. That's um you know after plans are largely baked. So the the it's very important to take Mr. Cohen up on his uh suggestion to um you know to talk to council sooner rather than later. And
of course um anyone who has follow-up questions um uh you know and and or maybe doesn't want to address the board tonight but you know would like to know more is welcome to reach out to Mr. Leco. Is that right?
>> Certainly >> and you can either answer them or direct them to the right place. Y >> um so thanks for those um questions uh Miss Garuniac. And are there any other members of the public who wish to
speak to the board? I'm not seeing any hands go up. So seeing that, I will close the public comment portion of the hearing and um invite further thoughts, comments, questions um
from board members before we consider a resolution or a motion, excuse me. Anything else? Okay. Would would anyone like to um to
move uh that the planning board recommends um uh council approval of the these parcels uh as an area in need of redevelopment? >> I would move that. It's the planning
board really has determined that um these parcels satisfy one criteria under the local >> turned to you first Mr. Muller. >> Yes. The planning board fines. Um someone said was that you Mr.
>> Bonimer? Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? >> I can second. >> Thank you Miss Na. Um, Justin, would you call the role, please? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm going to try to do this in the dark um
because my lights just turned out. Um, Mr. Bodingham, >> yes. >> Miss Capazolei, >> yes. >> Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes.
>> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. >> Miss Na, >> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Miss Pearlmutter. >> Yes. >> And Chair Curry Wilson.
>> Yes. >> Motion. >> Well done, Mr. Leco. By the light of your screen. >> Got to pay the bills here. >> I I hesitate to ask, does this qualify your office as an area you need to revel?
>> Right now. Right now it does. >> Depends on the financing. I just want to say I it's it's just great to see this, you know, what's envisioned is this mix of designated affordable and workforce below market
rate housing. It is there is no other place as far as I know in Princeton that that fits that description. And um I just think it it it's a really interesting notion and I very much look forward to seeing how how it comes
together. Uh the devil's in the details of course and and I'm sure neighbors will be very curious and um so am I. Um are there other
uh is there any other business? Okay. Well, um I know Mr. Cohen has one more item of business, but before he does, I want to say happy holidays to everybody. Happy Hanukkah to those who who celebrate. We're right in the midst of Hanukkah.
Merry Christmas next week, happy new year, all of that. Um it's it's wonderful to see all the lights all around town. Mr. Cohen, >> I I heard on the Tonight Show last night that we call the middle of Hanukkah,
happy hump day. >> I like that. >> A new Jewish joke. >> We come up with one every thousand years. >> All right, I move to ajourn. >> Second. All in favor?
>> I >> I. >> Thanks everyone. See you in January. >> Happy holidays everyone. >> Happy holiday as all. >> Safe and dry. Good night. Night.