good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the planning board on January 18th 2024 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 20123 through January 2024 a copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 17 2023 legal notice on the adoption of said resolution was published in the January 13 2023 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 and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday January 7 17th 2023 please note 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 by planning board members and staff those wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions or raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star n oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands are raised we ask with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less we will have a countdown clock to 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 Miss philli please call the role before I do that I want to move over um Miss penu um I'm sorry I I believe haluka do you mean yeah I thought it was I thought it was her I'm sorry it's not yeah yes she's here with us now you moved her over oh wonderful okay um Mr bodimer here miss capoli here Mr Cohen Mr McOwen here miss Nuka here Mr odonnell here miss pearlmutter here miss Sachs here Mr Taylor here Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here we have a quorum thank you um announcements excuse me um Justin are you there you go yes thank you madam chair uh and good evening planning board members and members of the public um I just have a quick announcement about the planning board retreat we've been discussing um I sent out uh some dates that we could potentially have the meeting February 10th looked like it worked the best for everyone um I'll follow up uh with more concrete information about date and time but please continue to send me any topics uh that you might want us to cover um as well as any uh dietary restrictions that you have last year we had a lunch and I think it was nice um and it was from taim and it it was pretty good too um so please just uh uh share uh you you know if you have any dietary restrictions great thank you for that other announcements okay seeing none um I don't think we have any I'm sure I we do not have any subcommittee reports um we also as was um discussed a little bit um shortly before the meeting will not be considering minutes this evening there's been confusion over minutes on the agenda versus minutes actually circulated and um so we're going to get all of that ironed out and bring minutes um back to the board at the next meeting um so moving on to applications and hearings uh first up we have 21 Wiggins LLC uh this is an extension of vested rights for site plan approval at 21 Wiggins Street block 27.0 2 Lots 42 43 and 44 this is file number 23 21- 030 P Mr meller is there anything you need to say about jurisdiction and yeah they did they did provide notice and um it was satisfactory and the board has jurisdiction no Jerry this was the extension request and I did not ask them to do a notice for an extension request for one year I thought I thought we did okay then then uh if it just yeah it's the board's still jurisdiction okay um Mr leco you want to start us off here sure thank you madam chair Jared do you need to swear me in for this one yeah if you could raise your right hand do you swear affirm the testimony about to give be the truth I do so SAR airmed thank you uh thanks Madam chair um before you uh is a request for a one-year extension of the vesting rights for a major site plan application that this board approved in late 2021 and was memorialized in February 2022 the Project's located at 21 wigin Street um it's partially the former hight Toops building on the corner of Wiggins and and North T Lane uh the approved project included 19 residential apartments and the Adaptive reuse of the former High Toops building as a first floor office utilizing the ah1 overlay under the municipal land use law An approved major site plan receives protection from zoning changes for two years from the date of when the findings of fact are or adopt it uh the board has the discretion under that mlul to provide up to three one-year extensions on top of the initial two-year uh period um note that approvals do not expire as is commonly thought um they provide protection from zoning changes within that period of time um I say that because there have not been any zoning changes applicable to this application uh so basically nothing's changed since you've heard it uh two years ago um in terms of of the Zoning for the property um the applicant listed covid-19 and the the downswing in the economy as causes for the project to be delayed in the information that they provide in your packet um the conditions of the board within those findings in fact would still apply for the project um and the master plan goals referenced within those findings still apply um so just to summarize because there haven't been any zoning changes uh because the causes for the project being delayed are fair uh and because the goals still apply and are met um it's reasonable in my opinion uh for the board to provide the extension um I know Mr deg is here uh representing the applicant um and Madame chair uh um I'm happy to turn it back to you if you'd like to turn it over to him uh quick question um maybe this is for Cherry um our new members of the board um able to vote on this extension um yeah yes okay um so welcome Mr toia thank you good evening everyone uh for the record my name is Christopher degia from the law firm of fagre Drinker bid and wreath here on behalf of the applicant 21 Wiggins LLC as Mr leco um described this is a pretty simple extension application um the project had a lot of really um positive attributes it it included 19 units uh affordable housing green roof preservation of large trees EV charging stations interior bike storage adaptive reuse of an existing structure and many of these were before uh the ordinances that you've put in place for some of these components as well um so it's it's a it's a great project and and um we're in the process of meeting the conditions of approval satisfying the resolution which requires a number of different steps from you know updating the plans to the deed restriction documents to um uh uh consolidation of the two lots so we're looking for another year um extending the protection period um Aubrey Haynes uh representative of the applicant is here as well um I don't know if Aubrey wants to add anything but really just offering him here if there's any particular questions from the from the board on this further to add thank you yeah I'm gonna okay I'm gonna sway in um do you swear or affirm that the testimony you've given any future testimony might give will be the truth I do so it's one affirmed so you swear you have nothing to add just kidding um I'm happy to answer them of course of course um are there any questions for Mr Haynes on behalf of the applicant or um for Mr degia Mr mwan uh just briefly I know um Mr Lesco summarized the need for um this you know this application can just just for the record can the applicants State why this is necessary why they why they want this doesn't have to be long but I just think that the applicant we have not been able to secure the funding to build this project um as a result of um a number of factors but mostly the economy that the increase in interest rates has made it very difficult to um obtain financing um but interest rates are coming down and actually we have some folks that are um we believe have raised their hands so hopefully we'll get this project underway sometime by the middle of the year is the issue may I ask obtaining the financing or is the issue the cost of financing available so before you answer Mr Haynes um and I'm not saying these questions are inappropriate but I do want a little guidance from Mr Mueller about what considerations the board is allowed to um fair enough to um you know here and and make decisions based on because you know I've heard over the years that um that finances are an especially tricky area and that the board really should not be making its decision based purely on um Financial considerations so just you know give us a little bit of guidance I mean Mr degia you know talked about other factors as well and I and you know so maybe we should be focusing on those I'm just I'm not sure sure and I'm sorry to cut you off Jack I I just don't want to go down a road that we right no it's well avoid I well I think the question was appropriate and it just if there's a reasonable basis for granting the extension um and and that's really it board has I think a lot of flexibility in the scope of its if determination will be quite wide and I'm happy to answer the question it's both it's both the availability and the cost but mostly um it's not on the debt side it's on the equity side when um interest rates started going up um projects like this um became less attractive to investors um and um so the you know was difficult to get the project launched with the with the funding that we had so we we've we obviously we we've been able to get through the the entitlements process um and get the approv approvals um we've carried the property we've been paying our property taxes pretty good um pretty high property taxes for a vacant property um and uh so but we we're as anxious to get it underway as anybody and anxious to deliver those um five uh four sorry four um COA units to the town um and um we think it'll be uh a nice project for the for that end of town and um it'll be good good for Princeton more uh more housing so that uh more Workforce folks can can can live there thank you thank you um other questions for Mr Haynes or Mr degia um and seeing none would um I will open I take public comment on on this correct is this yes open the meeting public comment okay um I'll open the meeting to um for public comment so any members of the public who would like to um speak to this issue address the board um please uh virtually raise your hand Now by clicking on the raiseed hand icon or pressing star n if you're on the phone I don't think we have anyone who's just on the phone I'm not seeing any hands go up we do have seven um attendees in addition to those of us active participants so public comment going once going twice all right I will close the public comment portion um of this hearing and invite board members to offer comments ask any final questions deliberate make a motion Mr odonnell thank you madam chair uh no I have no further uh comments in with uh unless other members of the board have questions or comments I'd like to make a motion that we approve the extension uh moved by Mr O'Donnell seconded by Mr bodimer is that right Matt correct yes okay thank you um call the role please uh Carrie thank you Mr bimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr Macwan yes Miss Nuka yes Mr odonnell yes Miss pearlmutter yes Miss Sachs yes Mr Taylor yes Mrs Wilson yes uh motion carried good appreciate thank you very much thank you both uh good luck Mr Haynes thank you very much appreciate it take you're welcome yep you too um next up we have um ala Patel penu this is a minor subdivision um known as the Gulick settlement or on a property known as Gulick s settlement this is at 1082 Princeton Kingstown road block 1502 Lots 2.01 and 2.03 file number p2323 d36 69 Ms and historic preservation commission or HPC file number 46h P-223 uh Mr leco you want to um I just want to advise that we looked at the notice for this hearing and everything is in order on my end and Jerry has confirmed that the language was acceptable right and the board has jurisdiction thank you right thank you you I I really have a mental block about asking that question and um I'll get over it someday um thank you Mr leco um please get us started here thank you thank you madam chair and Jerry I'm ready to be sworn in whenever go raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give would be the truth I do so swor or affirmed thank you uh and before we start um Mr Kennedy is there anyone else in the attendees you'd like us to bring over uh no just uh um I see Kevin brackle has been moved over the applicant is here but I'll be honest I don't think we need any testimony from them so we've got everybody got it thank you let us know if that changes um thank you madam chair um I'm going to share my screen if that's all right uh to orient us to the site and I see the screen's loading uh so Jerry I'm using the NJ Geo web software from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection okay it's publicly available um the applicant before you is for a minor subdivision um according to the agenda but really it's a lot line adjustment as no New Lots are being created or or subdivided out of other Lots the subject Parcels uh are these two where my cursor uh is currently at um these both front Route 27 uh you know which obviously is also known as Princeton Kingston Road we'll probably use that interchangeably tonight um you'll see the Gulick preserve is to the north of the property Kingston is a Stones throwaway lake carnegi is across the street past some residential Parcels um both of these Parcels are zoned R4 residential 4 in the former Township lot 2.01 is the larger one at about 11.87 Acres it contains a historic Farmstead with dwellings and farm structures on it you may have noticed even an ouse was on the uh uh subdivision plan that you saw um lot 2.03 is approximately .8 Acres that's this uh flag shaped lot um kind of in the corner of lot 2.01 um lot 2.03 is currently unimproved uh with any structures uh so Route 27 uh or Princeton Kingston Road is listed on the proposed future sidewalk network of the sidewalk plan map as adopted in 2017 by this board uh and carried through in the master plan both Parcels are located in the Kingston Mill historic district and a report from the historic preservation officer was provided yesterday um and I believe Miss Kim is here if you have any questions or to present that um additionally we have reports from Mr Bridger and Mr wian and myself uh and comments within those reports that we can hold until after the applicant's presentation um and with that being said I I will turn it back over to you uh Madam chair unless any members of the board have any questions for me at this time thank you I'm adjusting so that I can see folks um Mr Muller just one clarification the applicant has applied for minor subdivision and in fact they are subdividing the larger lot to give a small slice of it to the smaller lot to make that smaller lot conforming um so there is a there is a subdivision and actually a second step will be then a consolidation of the little portion of the large lot that's been cons subdivided off with the smaller lot that clear anybody yeah yes thank you um Owen O'Donnell uh Justin I just have a process question did this application go to the site plan committee I noticed that it is a minor uh sub minor subdivision and and uh we usually send those to the site plan committee first don't we uh the site plan committee only sees minor site plans we don't have a subdivision committee um at this time so this didn't go to any other one but that's a good question any other questions for Justin before we here from the applicant and I'm um do we want to swear in other um Municipal staff before we turn to the applicant I I know at some point this evening um Elizabeth Kim Dereck Bridger and Dan Weissman May testify um do you want do you want to wait um I think it's a good idea doing it now okay so Dan and Derek and Elizabeth if you could um activate your cameras and let Mr Muller swear you in just to get that done they they've all activated their cameras and they've all got their hands raised M Mueller okay uh if you could raise your right hand I guess they're not coming up on my screen as usual do you swear or affirm that testimony about to give will be the truth I do thank you thank you all um and and none of you have has anything to add uh that's pressing um to what Mr Lesco said before we hear from Mr Kennedy on behalf of the applicant okay um Ryan Kennedy welcome leading Madam chair all right um my name is Ryan Kennedy from the law firm of Stevens and Lee uh Happy New Year everyone and members of the board um as Mr Le Mr leco said um we are technically here for a minor subdivision uh but in the form of a lot line adjustment and when this property as a collective um commonly known as the the gullick property um by Princeton there was a big chunk preserved as he showed you there was a big piece that was kept with the historic home and then this one buildable lot uh interestingly as you noted in the shape of a flag um was was left when Princeton did the subdivision the lot in the shape of a flag predates Princeton's flag ordinance and is not compliant barely with uh the current requirements and the requirement in in specific is that the flag portion minus the pole or not including the pole of the flag be as big uh as the uh as required lot size in this case that's 75 Acres we were a hair under that when this was done um and we are here to shift that lot line back a few feet so that the flag part of the flag lot is now compliant and that would make this a fully compliant lot rather than having a a future buyer or homeowner which is the applicant here contract purchaser um come in for a a variance later so this will will adjust the lines to make it a fully compliant lot um in a historic Zone you know uh future development would be subject to Historic review um but not having to come back to the zoning board or or this board for future relief um we've gone through the uh the memos done by your professionals uh we have no issues with really any of the comments at all um uh and thank them for their help in getting this uh to this point here um we'll have uh one witness I can't say we'll be as quick as your extension but we don't have a lot to to talk about um I I'd like uh uh before I bring our exhibits up um if uh Kevin brackle could uh um unmute himself and Mr Muller if you'd like to um swear him in I can have him give his credentials if you could raise your right hand I assume it's raised um do you swear testimon about to give be the truth I do so so want toer thank you so much Kevin if you you could just briefly I know you've testified before this board many times uh give your credentials and I'm going to have you uh accept it as an expert here tonight uh my name is Kevin brockel b r a k l I'm a principal with Princeton Junction engineering I have I am currently licensed in the state of New Jersey to practice professional engineer uh I've done numerous site plans uh in front of this board and other boards and subdivisions thank you madam chair if that's acceptable we'd like to have him uh accepted as a as an expert here as expert engineer yes we accept your qualifications thank you so much uh also if it's um acceptable we did provide uh I believe eight slides uh in advance and just in an interest of time one of them does just say thank you um uh I would like to share my screen and have that marked as our uh exhibits this evening if that's all right sure why don't we Mark that all as exhibit A1 thank you all right Kevin um if we could let's uh starting here on Slide two guess this is a portion of Princeton's tax map and that Arrow shows the the property that we're talking about that is correct it's more pointed toward the overall lot uh lot 2.0 current lot 2.01 but yes you can see that little flag there uh next we've got a kind of regional view I think very similar to the one that Mr leco showed earlier in orienting the board but uh in blue that is uh at least one of the two lots I think you could see a little tooth of a of the flag lot carved out of it but that you could just briefly Orient the board about where where this is again well the OB it's on the uh let's call it the S South uh southwesterly side of Princeton Kingston Road also known as Route 27 it also has some Frontage along the Northerly line of Dodge Lane uh you could see a little leg that that's up the road there uh and stated before it's not far from the intersection of River Road here's a I think slide four is a a bigger blowup here I guess you could see the arrow points to the flag lot that we're talking about the blue part shows the larger of the two lots where we're going to borrow a little property from that's correct that's a better moving on to slide five this is a portion of your subdivision plat that shows the original 2001 Princeton project is that right that's correct and just to orient the board again the the the larger lot that we're surrounded by essentially is 2.01 2.2 is lot 2.01 it's 11.87 11.87 Acres approximately currently and and you can see the Shaded area is the current lot 2.03 at 80 acres now uh the the flag portion uh 2.03 does that have any development on it yet no it's a vacant lot with some with some trees and though the 2.01 does have the historic uh uh Farmstead and and out buildings correct so mov on to slide six uh we we grapple with Princeton's new flag rules that came into play after this subdivision was done uh essentially Kevin do I have it right that that green portion in the back we are kind of borrowing or well we're not giving it back but we're taking taking from yes we're taking 13 feet from 203 excuse 2011 and moving it to 2011 that well actually from 2011 to 203 yeah thank you 13 it's about 13 feet or approximately 4,700 square feet and that will make the non-pole portion of the flag the0 75 Acres that it needs to be to be compliant that is correct now also shown here um is the current driveway Network and um is your understanding that uh you after we submitted this um and and uh that Princeton staff pointed out um uh perhaps a couple of uh issues with the existing driveway location um and and has recommended the use of the traditional pole portion of the of the lot uh for a new Drive that is correct uh with the with the stream or it's more of a ditch a drainage ditch which has reparan buffers to it 50 foot pretty much encompasses the whole uh that current access easement so it's recommended that we use the pole Forge which would be outside the reparan zone and possibly eliminate any possible DP permitting needed to develop that to develop the new lot 2.03 and and I guess it's it's our new understanding that under Princeton's new flag lot rules amongst other things the driveway actually would have to be in the pole of the flag uh or another variance would be needed and uh the applicant is all right with using the poll is that that that's my understanding yes yep um I guess this slide shows that as well uh again when when this property was originally sub divided and uh preserved um there was a easement created to allow a driveway um near where that green arrow is shown through the property but not through the pole portion uh that's the area that has some both some Wetlands features that would require some permitting for us to do and would also require a variance uh I think the board could Grant an a variance for us to um to use the existing driveway but uh the applicant is is is perfectly fine with using the traditional pole portion for a driveway in this case that's correct um Kevin um any other I I I think I made a blanket statement and I hope it's correct that we're we're good with all of the other comments that um uh Princeton's professionals made uh anything else you want to point out in your mind or no I I it seems everything uh you know from the report Standford we can comply with all that without any problem and you know I I really don't have anything else to add to that there are two waivers Ryan and they pointed out in in Dan and Derek's memo on on Section 2.0 one is fire protection plan obviously there's no improvements being proposed except for the new driveway and the second is a letter a waiver of the letter from the tax collector stating all taxes and assessments are paid to date they have not been paid as my understanding and maybe somebody on your team could address that so um uh two things in one we're appreciative of the Princeton staff in in allowing this to advance forward uh thing one is that actually through an arrangement between the seller and the uh my client the purchaser the taxes were I believe brought up to date at the end of last quarter um and uh while I believe the waiver still is appropriate it's understanding that is they they actually are um current um and further understand that that allowing the subdivision to occur makes this lot sellable um by the current owner um to my client uh and then allow any additional funds needed to pay the back taxes to be available so the original reason for the waiver was so that could happen and the funds could be used uh to pay back taxes or any other obligations they have perhaps to the municipality um uh uh however I I won't be testifying to this but my understanding is that they have been since paid uh by the uh applicant purchaser uh in order to make sure that things moved smoothly is that just is that just the last quarter taxes so they could be unpaid taxes going back for consider time no um it's a little of both I guess this is all public record but uh uh there was um enough back taxes that it would have gone to a lean sale um in December uh and uh uh we made sure that that didn't happen um I believe that the uh since we're just still in January that there actually are no taxes um certainly on this lot that are unpaid um uh I I I can't directly confirm but we we made a significant payment which I believe covered all of the taxes to avoid the the sale uh in December thank you uh now as to the other waiver um uh we we certainly again kind of agree uh with staff that it would be appropriate we did though will note um our engineer actually included um that information uh sheet um necessary the the flow tests uh at distance to fire hydrants and whatnot um on on the plan so actually I think in our mind we we both the waiver would be appropriate so that information could be provided when the lot was actually developed uh in the future um and because this is an existing lot we're not creating a new one but in this case it happens to be that we we provided um my understanding is all the relevant information from a fire narrative uh on a sheet of the plans uh flow tests locations of uh hydrants um Etc and that would be carried over I guess as a condition uh when this went to be developed by the the new owner thank you with with that I believe that's the are our testimony and chief we be happy to answer any questions that the board or your other professionals have okay thank you um so you intend to put the driveway for the new well the driveway for a home that might be built on the newly conforming flag lot in the poll section of the flag correct that is and and there are no that is unconstrained um terms of wetlands or buffer or anything like that it's a it's it's that's correct okay and [Music] um is the driveway that otherwise would have been used that's runs parallel to the intermittent stream or um Waterway or ditch or whatever however you want to refer to it is that used um regularly I'm I'm basic Al wondering if we might um if not close off at least um have some understanding that you know by by not using that as access to uh new dwelling um you know it might I I I you know if it were used for access to the new dwelling at least it's using the same existing presumably impervious cover and now with the driveway over in the flag pole portion of the newly conforming lot we're adding more impervious instead of you know having a shared use and I'm just wondering if [Music] um if if we might you know not be using that other driveway anymore or whether it's uh used regularly you know by the applicant and um could you just talk a little bit about that uh I'll start and I'll I'll let Kevin finish um my the uh if you could see my cursor part of this driveway is already um I guess the what would become the shared portion is already an existing kind of looping driveway the upper part where the arrow is is an easement that would be new pavement um and require some D permits um the applicant initially intended I think the original idea literally for this site the plan because this is where the easements were created when it was um originally um set up uh as part of the preservation was to use this as the driveway that was our applicant's plan um in in talking with um with staff we're perfectly comfortable using um a totally new driveway we we certainly understand your point and perhaps um granting that variance to allow that as option might end up in the you know possibly if we can get the D permits save some impervious coverage um uh we not to say we don't have a horse there we we initially came at it thinking that's what we wanted to do U but we were happy to to uh abide by the staff's recommendations to use the the poll yeah and I I'm not arguing that that's a bad idea I'm just seeing lots of ways for someone who enters off of what you know who enters the property from Princeton Kingston Road um not the flag lot property but the larger lot 2.0 uh one right um that there are lots of ways to just you know turn around and and use that driveway for Ingress and egress and that maybe the the additional existing impervious cover is not necessary however um I I don't want to suggest that that should be a condition I know that's not what is before the board right now I'm just looking at it as un necessary uh impervious cover that you know could go away so um maybe want you just think about that a little bit and I I don't want to uh um you know take up time while other folks might have question to ask I see Claudia Wilson Anderson's up and any other board members who wish to pose questions please raise your hands um Claudia good afternoon or evening um as I understand it this flag lot was originally um established in 2002 at the time that the land was preserved at 28 Acres were sold to Princeton for Park and the parcel was broken up into 2.01 and 2.03 three uh at that time I believe and and maybe this is all resolved so this is a long uh story about nothing but I believe $600,000 was set aside for the purpose of renovating the 1690 16 uh 97 Farmhouse um my understanding was that that money was not spent and that uh in 2002 there was a settlement with between the goux and the um Municipality of Princeton uh required the sale of this parcel this 2.03 parcel I understand the need for the uh additional square footage on the parcel to meet the current flag lot requirements um but I believe part of the settlement was and this is the 2002 settlement that the money from the sale of this parcel would be set aside for the renovation of the 1697 his historic home and that the deed would be held by the municipality of Princeton until such time that the municipality of Princeton was satisfied that the work was done how does that impact any of what's going on here and does it involve the Planning Commission or anything that we approve now or has it already been resolved and I just am a little out of date I I'll first note that there is another there was a subsequent action not involving so um uh I think your history of things is is to my understanding quite correct um uh my client the applicant here is the purchaser of that lot that that would have been uh the funds essentially that you're you're talking about uh there was a subsequent action by the municipality um and the current owners um that uh perhaps either Justin or or um someone else of staff can speak a little bit more to but ultimately um while I don't believe it is a purview of of the board for condition what you described is essentially what is going to happen there is a settlement between um uh the current owner and the municipality I've been in regular touch with um edmir um uh who as the municipal attorney um uh holds the keys essentially to that process um to make sure the funds go to the right place um I I I'm aware of all these things and I I think you've got it right but I prefer not to be the one to testify to them I suppose MH and if I could jump in and I see Elizabeth's hands up um and she knows more about uh all the settlements because of some of the actions that the historic commission has really driven uh with Mr schmir um but I guess just first and foremost my recommendation would be to uh review this as you would review uh any subdivision application you know against uh our Municipal ordinances and health safety and Welfare um particularly this is a complying application uh for both Parcels uh and it it as Mr Kennedy described it takes one parcel from non-compliance to compliance um that being said they're still they are asking for that waiver from the taxes paid which is not something we see here very often um and it it does feed into uh the reasons for that feed into whether or not you know this board should grant that waiver um that all being said I'll turn it over to Miss Kim uh hopefully I haven't confed confus people even more um if she would like to discuss more of the uh more recent actions that have taken place uh with the uh Property Owners uh thank you um I apologize I um Miss part of what Claud had said I had to take a phone call but um as far as the um the uh latest agreement that was with um the current prop property owner Gulick um that has been resolved but at the same time um it is subject for that preservation work to be done um pending the uh funds being reestablished for that work with the sale of this lot so HPC is supportive of this and they are anxious to try to get that work started because as you can see it was in 2002 when this original dream it was but I do feel that those are two separate ones from this sub division application at this time thank you Miss Kim Mia sax yeah I I I can't elaborate too much other I mean other than to say that I know this is this matter has gone on with the taxes for a while it's come before Council a number of times we there was some very bad behavior and some concerns about the property andent and I'm not being oblique I honestly can't remember all the details other than to say that um I um am glad to hear I my from what I can remember and it's a while back there were a number of attorneys like Ed working on it and and you know it had been resolved and I think there was interest in the town in in doing whatever was needed to stabilize the property and not see further deterioration and neglect and bad behavior as and and inability to to comply with the original agreement um and so um that is the extent unfortunately of my memory um but I'm very pleased to hear Elizabeth say that you know and this is consistent that I think we wanted to get things stabilized so it sounds like this that's what this represents which sounds good to me so I hope that helps for what it's worth thank you Julie capoli yeah I would just like to weigh in that you know it would be great for this sale to proceed and um for a lot of reasons that don't have to do with this application so um it would be uh I I I think it would be you know it seems very reasonable to me and I know the HBC is anxious for this to proceed um I have a question for maybe Miss Kim and Miss capazo I'm curious about whether you know I had raised this question before about the one of the driveways which looked like a lesser us driveway in a a very very old property like this um is the interior is the circulation if you will the the driveways and access points are those considered part of the historic um design and character of the property and something that you would not want to mess with um Miss Kim you're on mute um I saw I saw you talking but yes um I would say it is and one of the cases I would talk about is the recent um ice company where there is the driveway that access the ice company that was added to one of the significant features of the property so the circulation um any site features that might happen even a bridge or something like that they are considered part of the historic um elements of it all right that's helpful so never mind what I said before um are there other uh Julie have you done I see are you finished I see your hand is still up if I could jump in for a second um yes when I swore people in earlier Elizabeth were you included in that group I was yes he was yeah sorry sorry okay um all right are there other questions uh from board members for the applicant or for staff or Mr meller and if there are no oh Mr Weissman thank you madam chair good evening everybody um I just had one question we had a comment uh and I believe Justin had the the comment as well uh regarding a pedestrian path easement um along the frontage of the property uh as I understand your applicant is the contrast purchaser of lot two 03 but we just wanted to confirm that that easement uh would stress across both Lots 2.01 and 2.03 Mr Kennedy as as I said we we have no objection as the applicant we passed that along uh to the owner after our discussion and did not receive any objection back so thank you okay any additional comments from Mr Bridger or any any of our our other uh in-house professionals okay seeing none um oh excuse me yeah sorry I couldn't find the hand buttons I did it the oldfashioned way um I had one other comment um the part of the larger parcel that reaches out to dod's Lane there's a little kind of narrow uh part it's not necessarily material to the application before us here um I did some research on it a few months back for a different purpose and I've seen it shown multiple different ways and I can't say for certain right now what the correct uh way that it should be shown is um but I I have a comment that you know the staff should work with the applicant throughout this process after this to make sure what is shown on the final uh plat is uh is the correct way I I can weigh in on that uh I have the I'm looking currently at the original subdivision nassal surveying did and what that was it looked like it it it calls out for it was Lot four and it was based on a reserve of Street use per the file map 1518 so I guess there was a little cutout in there and this property meets that that's why it comes up short from say the RightWay of dots if you I don't know do you have that uh would you happen to have the final map for this the plan of survey and sub for goet form uh are you asking the the proposed one the well they're right the one that was originally subdivided this lot to created the 203 lot uh if you look on that final plat in fact that's how it is that's how the outbound is shown comes up short on Dodge Lane if you will from what you see and then there's a question if the remainder going to dod's Lane is its own parcel that the municipality owns if it's right of way um so those are the types of things that I don't think are obviously gerain to this application right but um in some of the previous approvals I've seen it seems like you know there's been some flexibility let's say uh with how it's shown and and I just don't want to continue that flexibility uh it would be great if we could get to the bottom of it okay well we can work that out yeah I'll I'll suggest so just so don't forget there we may have discovered in through our Title Company um uh maybe even an error in one of those courses that might have shifted or appeared to shift everything you know towards dod's lane or Not by about 30 feet that might be a part of that as well so I I can flag that and and show that to you and perhaps that um that may help solve the mystery that'd be great so does what you all just discussed find its way into a resolution without being a condition or is it just a sidebar conversation that'll be continued I I want to be clear on what we're what the outcome of this little good talk uh actually is if it was IM meatable to the applicant I would propose a condition you know kind of the open-ended one we have of uh applicant works with staff you know to to make sure we're putting the correct thing on there um I guess if it could be phrased that we would assist I'm just concerned that if it's something that we can't solve as the purchaser of the flag that we not delay finalizing this indefinitely but we would certainly be willing to do everything in our our efforts to help solve and correct that mystery but just so it's clear to me the mystery is is that little stub going partly but not completely to Duds yes yeah M okay did did the owners of the bigger lot um did they consent to this application it's actually their application right I mean it's their it's their lend which is being subdivided so the the applicant is the the puu family the contract purchaser uh but the owners of both Lots did um jointly consent to its filing so we we uh uh the the contract purchaser is is applicant with uh permission and and physically executed uh by the fee owners essentially my greater concern is that we sign off and memorialize on something with something incorrect on it um not that I'm doubting the applicant's engineer at all but just from what I've looked into it in in years past it's it's a little bit of a complicated issue um so before we accept the proposal as seen tonight just to verify that's correct you verify that it doesn't go all the way to the Dodge slam RightWay whether that's should be shown as a a separate parcel um whether it's it is right of way itself uh or I don't think it extends all the way to the right of way but if you look at our text map the uh which is not definitive necessarily it shows right way all to the rear of the other Parcels that are over there uh which conflicts with what we see here okay okay thank you so the condition would be that the applicant assists to the extent they can to resolve any remaining questions related to this slice of the of the larger parcel I think that would work for us and I'll also suggest that based on will that work for you Justin I'm sorry I'm sorry Mr Kennedy I don't mean to that works for me I mean part of the reason is I don't want to have to send the applicant back to the board if we find out you know exactly yes something wrong is is on here uh and we can't sign off on it okay um Mr Taylor yeah just wanted to add my confirmation with Justin's recommendation uh I walk by the so-called easement multiple times every week and until I looked at the map I didn't know that there was an Eastman it's clear from a Layman's point of view that there is a lack of clarity and that there will need to be Clarity for further action with regard to the property so I'm simply endorsing Justin's recommendation thank you um any other questions for the applicant or professionals before we go to public comment okay seeing that oh excuse me Mr berler go ahead I had a question I wonder Justin could you put up the sheet um I think it's I think it's a first sheet of G1 or of of A1 sure from the applicant subdivision plan yeah well and it's actually from the uh from A1 uh I believe this is A1 this is the proposal I wanted the sheet that showed the um the present access and the proposed additional driveway uh that would be um possibly installed I guess that would either be the that's yeah yeah that that's that now Louise is well let me just is the intention that we we're going to permit this extension of the um the circulation system on the bigger lot to serve the smaller lot no okay I think that the I think that the applicant has agreed with the staff's recommendation that they um build a driveway through the flag hole to flag portion of the lot and that the and and my thinking was well if you're going to do that then maybe we can take away some impervious cover on the neighboring property but then I realized and it was confirmed by the experts that the circulation within that very old historic property is part of the historic yeah um yeah so that was a never mind moment Rosanna Rosanna Dana moment if you will okay yeah it just wasn't entirely clear to me I I knew the whole idea was to have the driveway serving the the small lot go up through the U um basic basally the poll um yeah but it it from the discussion it wasn't entirely clear to me what we were doing with this proposed 12 foot wide Drive um but now that's clear that goes away yeah okay yep thank you for that helping me to clarify that if it wasn't before it probably was just wasn't clear to me all right um so with that I'll open up um the public hearing uh so that members of the public public who might wish to address the board uh about this application may do so now um if you do wish to speak uh you need to raise your hand virtually by clicking on the raise hand icon if you're zooming um that icon is at the bottom of your screen I'm not seeing any hands go up um there's a hand Dale me uh has raised their hand and um so I would ask anybody else to please who wishes to speak to please raise your hand now and we'll take um speakers in the order in which hands are raised so Carrie are you bringing over Dale me I've attempted twice yeah it's not showing up there we go good good evening good evening Mr me um uh Mr Mueller will swear you in and then you can um speak your mind you can raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give will be the truth I do so want toir please set your phone name and spell your last name um Dale ma m a d Oakland Street Princeton New Jersey thank you thank you go right ahead I have a minor comment about the property taxes for this for uh block 1502 lot 2.03 the larger one um according to the tax collector's records as of 11824 the property taxes for the last quarter of 23 have not been paid so you might want to check this um tomorrow or as soon as possible or included in the resolution that um you're going to um pass uh regarding this property so again the tax Princeton Tax Collectors records indicate that as of today there is still property tax due on the last quarter and that includes it's about $1,200 and that includes interest as of today thank you Mr me um I believe there was a um a condition um laid out in one of our staff memos uh that would that would require the payment of those taxes before I can't remember the exact wording um uh Mr Kennedy I see your nodding your head indeed I mean the the idea similar to the funds are needed for the settlement on the historic preservation part um the whole idea of the waiver and allow this proceed was to allow the purchase to get to the point so that the purchasers funds could be used to pay any back taxes that might still be owed so that that condition is is certainly agreeable uh to us and our understanding of what would need to happen again um we we we paid a good chunk of it um if not all um apparently um to keep it from going to a lean to get to this point um but uh that as a that's the condition that we essentially worked out in advance with staff to even allow us to get to this point good okay thank you very much that was my only comment thank you very much uh any other members of the public wish to address the board about this application not seeing any other hands so I will close the public comment portion of the hearing um Mr odonnell yes thank you very much I don't want to be labor this point but I just want to make it clear are we talking about the delinquent taxes on 2.01 and 2.03 or just on 2.03 that the applicant is uh prepared to settle um I'll just say on behalf of the applicant that they all need to be paid frankly because there is a portion of both Lots not just the prior flag but the taxes from the other lot attached to the sliver that you know we've showed in green that's being transferred so um we cannot purchase the property unless the taxes are paid um and that is Our intention to make sure that they are because I cannot allow my client to buy uh a property where the taxes aren't current U either so uh it would be both okay thank you very much for that clarification yep thank you um other questions uh from board members any last questions comments um oh Paula vuka hi I just wanted to clarify um before we move to the vote uh so the discussion about the little finger that connects to dods Lane the easement at this point it's just a question of whether the maps are correct is that what um Justin was alluding to that we need to check that the we have the correct map um it's not going to affect the uh applicant's request to change the lot line because looking at the map that was just shown that lot line doesn't reach up to dods right okay that's correct yes okay thank you good um other questions comments thoughts motions I'll make a motion to uh approve uh the the lot line transfer as with the two waivers okay thank you so that's a a motion to approve the minor subdivision that amounts to a lot line adjustment um with the with the conditions listed in the memos and the waivers um uh or excuse me is it waivers of variances uh that were waivers I guess that that were requested and seconded by Mr bodimer Natt did you have anything else that you wanted to no thank you for asking sure um any final comment okay um Miss philli would you call the role Please Mr bimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr Macwan yes Miss yes Mr odonnell yes Miss pearlmutter yes Miss saxs yes Mr Taylor yes Mrs Wilson yes motion carried and just to make it clear one of the conditions I'm going to put in I'm not not sure it's specifically in the memos is that the sliver has to then be Consolidated with the smaller lot yeah otherwise just going to be floating out there as a non-conforming lot of self yes I I I certainly understood that to be the point right yeah and that's what I said earlier okay all right well um any other business Mr odonnell I feel like I'm David conen tonight with if there's no other business I move to a journ second thank you both moved by Mr odonnell seconded by Mr McGowan all in favor please say I um thanks very much everybody um Than You Justin will uh look for your or car's uh email about the retreat and um see you all in February stay stay dry and uh on your feet with all these all the snow and ice yeah yeah than right right good night thank you everybody thanks thank you have a good night