Okay, good evening and welcome. My name is Gerald Mueller. I'm the planning board attorney. I'm starting the hearing because there are the officers have not been appointed yet for this year. That's going to occur later on um during the session, I expect. Um but I'm going to read the opening statement. This is a
regular meeting of the Princeton Planning Board on Thursday, January 8, 2026 pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meeting Open Public Meetings Act. Adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the resolution of
regular scheduled meetings of the planning board of Princeton for February 2025 through January 2026. The copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 8, 2024. Um legal notice of the adoption of said
resolution was published in the January 17, 2025 edition of the Princeton packet. Notice of this meeting uh also has been posted on the municipal website www.princeton njjgocal.
Notice that all regularly all regular and special meetings of the Princeton planning board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet in the times and was filed with the clerk of the Princeton of Princeton on Tuesday,
January 17, 2023. Please note that this meeting is being recorded. Inappropriate public comment containing obscenity, hate speech, or related to matters not before the board will be muted. Um,
the first item on the agenda is the uh appointment of a um chair and vice chair. Do I hear any nominations? >> Um, I think Justin needs to >> call the role first, does he not? Am I >> I'm sorry. Yes.
Yeah, thank you. Uh, Mr. Bodheimer, Councilman Cohen here, >> Mayor Freda, >> here. >> Mr. McGawan >> here. >> Miss Na >> here.
>> Mr. O'Donnell >> here. >> Miss Pearlmutter. >> Well, I'm here, but unfortunately my video is not, and I can't seem to get it working again. I promise I will have it fixed by the next meeting. I I was hoping it would work tonight, but it's not.
>> Go ahead. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Taylor >> here, >> Miss Wilson Anderson >> here, >> and Miss Curry Wilson >> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you, Justin. The first item on the
agenda is the appointment uh election actually of chair and vice chair. Do I hear any nominations for the chair position? >> Well, I I guess on behalf of the nominating committee, um the we
nominated Louise Wilson as chair. >> Okay. >> And do we want to have do we want to do both right now too? >> I'm sorry. Say again. >> Oh, do you want do you want vice chair chair and vice chair or do you want to vote on them separately? >> We'll vote on on separately. Okay. >> And then for Louise Wilson for chair.
>> Thank you. Do I hear any other nominations? Oops. >> Okay. Do I hear any other nominations for chair? Could if the only person uh nominated is Miss Wilson, may we have a vote on vote on whether you want to have her as the
chair? Justin, can you take uh do the roll call? >> Certainly. Uh Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes.
Miss Na? >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell? >> Yes. >> Miss Pearlmutter? >> Yes. >> Uh, should I call one of the alternates instead of Louise Jerry? >> Yeah, I think so. Right. >> Okay, we'll do. Uh, Mr. Taylor?
>> Yes. >> And Miss Wilson Anderson? >> Yes. >> Uh, motion carries. Uh, Ms. Curry Wilson is the chair. Thank you. >> Thank you. Passing pass passing the
figurative baton on on to Miss Wilson for handling the rest of the meeting. >> Thank you. Um thanks very much. I I really do appreciate the vote. I appreciate the the confidence. It it is, you know, truly a privilege and an honor to serve
as the chair of this board, which I think is a really good planning board. Um, so, uh, just a point of order. Should we should we, um, administer the oaths of
office before we vote on another officer position. We did not I didn't I didn't want to flag that, but I think probably is would be a good idea to do that right now. >> Who who are are have to be re
reappointed? >> Um, Jack Taylor is >> being reappointed. And I guess that our class one and class three members, Mayor Freda, Councilman Cohen, do not need to be sworn in or do they? >> They usually are sworn in at the
>> Okay, so those three then I think. >> So Jack, it would just be you. If you could raise your right hand. >> Do you And Justin, do you have the uh the oath of office? >> Uh if you give me one second, I could find it. My apologies.
>> Okay. No, no problem. While Justin's looking, I'll just mention if anyone is deciphering the the writing on my mug, which says beer and wine garden, I'm drinking chamomile tea.
It's just a nice mug. Thank you for the clarification, >> Jess. Let me see if I can find it. >> I'm emailing it over right now. I have it, >> Jerry. I just sent it to you, >> Jerry. I'm not sure if you heard, but I just sent it to you.
>> I just heard it. Let me pick it up. My phone Oh, here it is. Yeah. If you can raise your right hand, Jack, I'm sorry. You probably had it raised the whole time. I >> I >> um and then your full name. >> Jack Taylor. John David Taylor.
>> Okay. Then I'll read and and you uh re repeat after me. Sincerely profess and swear that I do and >> Go ahead. sincerely profess and swear >> that I do and will be truly faithful >> that I do and will be s completely
faithful >> bear truth I'm sorry bear bear truth faith and allegiance >> bear truth faith and allegiance >> to the government established in this state >> to the government established in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people
>> I do solemnly swear >> I solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America. >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey >> the Constitution of the State of New Jersey.
>> And that I would faithfully, and partially, and justly >> that I will faithfully, and partially, and justly >> perform the duties of the office of >> perform the duties of the office of >> Princeton Planning Board, Class 4 member.
>> Princeton Planning Board member. according to the best of my ability and understanding. >> According to the best of my ability and what finally >> understanding >> and understanding >> okay I think >> and just to clarify my understanding is
that Mr. Taylor's taking the oath to be reappointed as alternate to >> I'm sorry >> not a class four member. >> He he just said member so I I think it's fine the way it is. >> Okay, good. But thank you. Uh >> I hope and trust one day it will be a
class four member but at this point he is he has altered. >> Okay, >> great. Um then um thanks everybody for that and let's um hear from the nominations committee about their
nominee for vice chair. The nominations committee is recommending that Owen O'Donnell be appointed vice chair of the planning board. >> Thank you. Are are there any other nominations from other members of the
board? I'm hearing none. Would someone like to move Owen O'Donnell as vice chair? >> May I second his nomination as vice chair? I I saw um Councilman's Cohen's hand go up to to uh move it. And yes, Jack, you
can second. And um uh Justin, would you call the role, please? >> Certainly. Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes.
>> Miss Na, >> yes. Miss Pearl Mutter, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Anderson, >> yes. >> And Chair Wilson,
>> yes. >> Uh, motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Excellent. >> Thank you, >> Zoe. >> Um, next we have several appointments. First, um, the appointment of planning
board attorney. Um there were resolutions about um all of these appointments in our packet um or in the in the link that was uh sent by Justin last week. Um would someone like to move this resolution appointing Jerry Mueller
and Muller and Bailey as um planning board attorney? >> Yeah. And the resolution itself says law officers of Gerald Muller, but it is Muller and Bailey. So >> Right. Okay. But no, >> sorry. That should be corrected.
>> You had it right. And yeah, right. Okay. >> I'm happy to make the motion to >> or sorry, Vice Chair O'Donnell, would you like? >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Um I'm happy to make the motion to uh appoint Muller and Bailey um as our
council for the planning board. >> And I'll second the motion. >> Thank you, Miss Na. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Call the role, please. Justin, >> certainly. Uh, Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes.
>> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. >> Miss Na, >> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Miss Pearlmutter, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> And Chair Curry Wilson, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Thank you. And I appreciate the vote of confidence. Absolutely. Good to have you back, Jerry. >> Good to be back. >> Um and u next up we have appointment of special counsel. Um that is Maraziti
Falcon, Joe Maraziti's firm. Um is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. McGawen. And a second >> for me. >> Thanks, Councilman Cohen. Um Justin. >> Council Cohen.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Frereda. Yes, >> Mr. McGawan. >> Yes, >> Miss Na. >> Yes, >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes, >> Miss Pearlmutter. >> Yes, >> Mr. Taylor. >> Yes,
>> and Chair Curry Wilson. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Um, and next up, appointment of redevelopment council. Once again, um, Joe Maraziti and Maraziti and Falcon.
Do I have a motion to approve that resolution? >> I will move this motion. >> Owen and a second. >> Second. >> Let's see. I think I heard Mark Freda and saw David.
>> Dave can have it. David's got it. David's got it. >> A little cognitive dissonance there. Um, okay. Seconded by Mr. Cohen. Um, Justin, please call the role. >> Secondly, Councilman Cohen,
>> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. >> Miss Na, >> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Miss Pearl Mutter, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes.
>> And Chair Curry Wilson, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thanks. And um and finally in terms of appointments um the appointment of planning board secretary Dera Battle. Um
as Justin mentioned, unfortunately Deedra's not able to be here tonight because of a family emergency, but she'll be here going forward and it'll be nice to uh nice to have her in that in that officially in that chair. I'm sure
you'll appreciate it too, Justin. Uh, is there a motion uh to appoint Dadra Battle um planning board secretary? >> So moved. >> Okay. Thanks, David Cohen. And a second.
>> Second. >> Thanks, Alvin. Um, call the role, please, Justin. >> Certainly. Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. Miss Na, >> yes.
>> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. >> Miss Pearl Mutter, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> And Chair Curry Wilson, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Um, thank you. Next up, we have a couple of
resolutions. Uh, the first um is about special meetings. I don't think we're we are not at this time scheduling any special meetings, but this relates to um noticing etc for special meetings. Would someone like to
move adoption of this resolution? >> Yeah. So moved. >> Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Second. >> My second. >> Thanks, Miss Na. Justin. >> Councilman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes.
>> Mr. Mr. McGawan. >> Yes. >> Miss Na. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell. >> Yes. >> Miss Pearlmutter. >> Yes. >> Mr. Taylor. >> Yes. >> And Chair Curry Wilson. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Thank you. And finally, um the 2026 and through January 2027 calendar. Um I'll just note we all got um copies of this
of the calendar or maybe a link to it um to the resolution that has all the calendar dates. There's an asterisk next to each month where for whatever reason, usually having to do with um holidays,
uh the schedule is something other than first and third uh Thursdays. So, just be on the lookout for that. Um, would someone like to move the calendar? >> I'm happy to move the calendar.
>> Thank you, Pauly. And is there a second? >> Second. >> Thanks, Owen. Um, Justin, call the role, please. >> Councilman Cohen, >> yes. >> Mayor Freda, >> yes. >> Mr. McGawan, >> yes. >> Miss Na,
>> yes. >> Mr. O'Donnell, >> yes. Miss Pearl Mutter, >> yes. >> Mr. Taylor, >> yes. >> And Chair Curry Wilson, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Um, great. Next up, um, we have
announcements. Any announcements from staff or board members? Justin. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two announcements. Um the first one is that you may have realized by now, Miss Capazolei. Uh her name was not called
during the roll call, Julie Capazolei. Um she decided after many years on the planning board as the class 2 member um that she was going to step down uh from that as well as as the chair of the HPC. So she's still going to be on the HPC for at least another year. Uh but is
stepping down um late in the year. She uh let us know. So we'll be looking to fill that class two position. That is the position under the municipal land use law that is an official of the municipality. Um so uh it might take a little bit of time to fill that seat.
>> Understood. >> Yep. >> Um >> I'm I for one am really going to miss having Julie on the board and I know others share that sentiment. She is wise
and um very experienced, very knowledgeable and um she'll be missed, but turnover is, you know, almost always a good thing. So, uh we'll welcome our new class two member when whenever they're
uh appointed and ready to be sworn in. >> Certainly. Yep. Um and and I I would just second that. I mean, uh, uh, Miss Capazolei did so much work, um, for the municipality, particularly behind the scenes with her HBC chair position. Um,
and she has been wonderful to work with. And now my lights turn off. And just the other announcement that I had um that uh it reminded me when we were talking about the noticing um and the special meetings and the calendar uh there was a new state law um last year
or a modification to the state law regarding noticing uh for board meetings. Um, and we are on that. We're working with the clerk's office um, by I believe there's an end of March deadline to get a system up and running where essentially we upload noticing on the municipality's behalf uh, for things
like uh, redevelopment plans or or uh just other things that we have to notice for um, online rather than in newspapers uh, physical newspapers. So, uh, we will be working on setting that up. >> Oh, that's good news. Well, I think it is.
I hope it's not uh you know I hope it doesn't represent any kind of difficulty from your perspective but it does seem like a much better way to make sure people have access to the information than in tiny tiny print on
page whatever of a newspaper. >> The newspaper is even available is even being published. >> Yeah. I Yeah. Um, okay, great. And I assume that we do not have any subcommittee reports
tonight. No. Okay. We have four sets of minutes. The first is from April 3rd, 2025. Any questions, edits, comments? And if not, would someone like to move the April 3rd
minutes? >> So moved. >> Thanks, Alvin. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thanks, Jack. Um, Justin, would you call Oh. Oh, with
minutes we can. I'm sorry. Just up or down, right? I mean, voice vote. >> Yep. >> All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Um, the minutes of April 17, 2025.
questions, edits, motion. >> I'll move. >> Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thanks, Pauly. Um,
all in favor, please say I. I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Minutes of June 25th, 2025. questions, edits, and if there are none, >> just just for the record, I wasn't I'm
not I wasn't here. So, I was >> Okay. And so, yeah, it's assumed if if if you're absent, then you'll be marked as abstaining is my understanding. So, that's why I don't call for abstensions. Um
just a yes or no. Okay. So, um I'm sorry. Did we get a motion? Uh or did we get a mot? >> No, there was no motion yet. I'll move. >> All right. Uh and who would like to
second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Moved by Mr. O'Donnell, seconded by Mr. Cohen. All in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay.
And finally, October 9th, 2025. We are catching up. Um, questions, edits, and if not, would someone move? Oh, Mr. Leco. >> Yeah, I just want to add there were a few absences on this, so I just wanted to read those out just so you know, not
to make a motion. And that would be Mayor Freda, Miss Na, and Miss Pearl Mutter for this one. >> Okay. Um, is there a motion on the October 9th minutes then? >> I move October 9 be approved.
>> Thanks, Mr. Taylor and a second. >> Second. >> Thanks, Alvin McGawan. Um, all in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Um, next up we have a
concept review and I am recused from this because I chair the board of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation which owns a property immediately to the east of this property. So with that, I would
like to hand the gavvel virtually over to Vice Chair Owen O'Donnell and um uh ask to be moved to the attendees room, please. >> Okay. Thank you, Louise.
Uh as Louise mentioned, this is a concept review. Charles and Amelia De Santo at 461 Mount Lucas Road, block 4301, lot 12. It's in the zone R2T
area. Um, file number P2424-6000C. Um, I just want to point out that this is an informal hearing. No formal action will be taken. There will be no vote uh taken on this. And uh just a reminder that uh we don't do straw polls on
concept reviews just in case uh that that issue comes up and that uh board comments are not binding if and when this application should come up to uh the full board for an actual application review. Um
Jerry, are we uh do we have proof of notice? >> Yeah, I don't you don't have to have notice for um >> Okay. concept review. Um Owen, do you want to comment on whether public um comment will be permitted? >> Yes, we will have public comment on on
this um if anyone wants to weigh in, but again uh this is not a formal hearing. Thank you. Thank you for that, Jerry. Uh Justin. >> Uh yes, and I just want to clarify um while there's no requirement uh for
certified mail, uh we often ask applicants to do that. Um, I'm pretty regular male at least. Um, and I I see Mr. Kennedy nodding his head. Um, so I believe they did that to the neighbors in the area. >> Thank you, Justin. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And Alvin?
>> Yeah. I I just have a question on on what we're deciding or not deciding. Are do we have to make a decision whether there's raised judicata? >> Yeah. >> Because if there is, that that that sort of ends this whole thing.
I turn this over to turn that question over to Justin. >> Yeah. So, I think tonight is a concept review. Um, so like we just said, you know, there's no binding comments. Um, there's no decisions being made. Um, but that being said, as you saw in our joint
memo, um, that doctrine of res Judicata did come up. Um, and that's something that the board would have to make at a full hearing. Uh so I think whatever feedback you could give to the applicant um tonight I think would be very helpful
um because that's ultimately something that you know I can't rule on that jury can't rule on that. If an application were to come through uh the uh the board would have to make that decision. And I I think part of
tonight's hearing u and we'll hear from Mr. Kennedy in a minute. and I'm sure he'll cover this. Um is frankly if it's worth their time to apply. Uh so uh does that answer uh enough Alvin? >> I think and you're on mute.
>> Yeah, I I anticipated that question coming up and I see Mr. Taylor um laughing and I see Freddy's hand up with the number of people that we have uh uh with law degrees on this board. Ready? >> Yeah. I I raised this the before. I just
want to make it very clear, Gary. I'm sure you agree with this that just by hearing this, we are not waving Race Judicata. Just by hearing this, we're not agreeing that, you know, >> absolutely not. And the board can certainly provide whatever feedback it wants now. And then it the if it look if
it appears that there are real problems but the um uh the applicant wants to go forward they can go forward in the application and the board would decide that at the outset of the application. >> Okay. I just want to make that make sure that >> thank you for asking that question
Freddy. Okay. Uh Justin would you like to or is Nathan going to take the lead on this? Yeah, I believe I'm uh I'll be I'll taking the lead on the uh presentation and Justin will also be uh available to answer questions on the uh the background of the application as well as to answer any other questions
that might come up that uh would be more under his uh under his purview. So, uh I guess I'll um I guess I'll take it, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Um so, do I need to be sworn in? >> No, this is for this is informal, so you
don't need >> Okay. All right. Um well thank you uh thank you again Mr. Chairman and uh Mr. Mueller um and uh good evening members of the board and members of the public uh any who are uh out there. Uh I'm going to share my screen
entire screen. Okay. And is that up for everybody? >> There we go. Yes, we can see it now. >> Okay. Uh and do we need to mark this as an exhibit? you know, although it is an it's an informal hearing, I think, and we what we've done before is we've
actually marked as exhibits documents um or identify them if there's been a submission so that if somebody goes back to the concept review and the record, they'll know what's being referred to when you're talking about a document. So, yeah. Is is this part of the uh
submission? >> No, this is uh this is our own um >> Okay, then let's mark it. >> Okay. in market is PB1. >> Okay. Uh, you know, I just realized I'm gonna have to stop my share real quick and then I'll bring it back in a second.
Uh, I'm just going to do the window and I hope this works. Okay. And everybody is still just seeing the uh the map. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Uh, so uh this is exhibit PB1. This is
an overhead image from the uh New Jersey uh NJ Parcel Explorer website uh prepared by Rowan University. Uh and most of what I'm about to discuss uh comes from the joint memo prepared by uh Derek uh Derek Bridger, Justin Leco, Jim Pcell, and myself uh that's dated
January 5th, 2026. Uh, as has already been noted, the subject property is identified as 461 Mount Lucas Road, block 4301, lot 12, uh, in the municipal tax records. Um, and
uh, it is zoned to the R2 zone of the former township. Uh, and all zones in this particular area of the municipality are from the former township. So, uh, just getting that on the record so I don't have to keep repeating that, uh, that phrase. um from the of the former township. Uh 461 Mount Lucas is located
on the east side of uh Mount Lucas Road as you can see uh and is largely wooded. The um the applicant's home is slightly north of the center of the lot. Uh there are farm buildings and decks to the rear of the house and a gravel driveway off
of Mount Lucas Road. Um, as you can see from uh from the uh the overhead image, you have the house uh farm and uh decks in the rear. Uh and then there's a gravel driveway. You can't really see it even if I zoom in. Uh but it's just south of uh where the house is located.
Uh parts of the house uh do date back to 1890 according to our tax records. However, uh the property is not located is not let me repeat that uh is not located uh within a local state or national historic district. Um to the west of the subject property uh across
Mount Lucas Road are residential properties in the RA uh and R2 zones. Uh just south of the uh of 461 Mount Lucas is a residential property uh that is located in the uh RA zone. Uh there is a
multif family building to the um uh to the east. Uh it is not it does not share a uh a common boundary with the subject property. Uh it just shares a corner uh but not an actual uh property line uh
with uh 461 Mount Lucas property. Uh there's also a wooded area owned by uh as uh as Chair Wilson had indicated uh before she uh recused herself, uh it is owned by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. Uh and that's located uh both due east and a little bit uh to the
southeast as well. Um there is a New Jersey American water uh property uh with a water tower uh to the north. Um you can see the water tower, that circular structure. Uh there's also a shared use path uh on the
south southern portion of that property along the boundary uh the property boundary with the 461 Mount Lucas property and that is subject to an easement. Uh I'll note that uh uh for everyone >> Nathan, is that on the um the subject
property or is it on the property of the uh water company? >> My my understanding is that it is located on the uh NJAW uh property. Uh I I I will say that I have not looked at the uh the records uh or the survey to see if that is the uh
the case, but my understanding from the uh from our land use engineer is that it's located on the uh that property to the north. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um so turning now to uh what's before the board uh this evening, the applicants have submitted a set of
concepts with the aim of subdividing the property uh into two lots. Um, so, uh, Chairman O'Donnell already, uh, mentioned a couple of, uh, the points that I was going to make already. Uh, I'll just quickly reiterate those. Uh, first, uh, no straw polls of the board
members are permitted. Uh, I don't think that would have been an issue anyway. Uh, but just to reiterate that. Um, and then second, the board's comments, uh, are not binding. Um, and the, uh, the purpose of the concept review is to provide a forum for board members to provide any, uh, and all of their feedback to the, uh, the applicant. Um
and that includes on the concept of uh resjudicata which I'll get to in a moment. Uh the critical wrinkle uh for all of these subdivision concepts uh is that in 2015 uh this board did deny an application for a subdivision that required a variance uh to uh to permit a
lot size of 0.996 acres for one of the proposed lots uh where 1.5 acres is required. Uh the board denied the subdivision application as it found that the applicant had uh had not demonstrated uh that the public would benefit from the granting of a lot size variance uh to allow for that
subdivision. Uh and then quoting directly from the 2015 findings of fact uh which stated quote the applicants failed to demonstrate to the board why dividing the existing lot in two with one of the lots being only 66.5% uh percent 7% of the lot area required
by the zoning ordinance would be a better arrangement than leaving the existing lot unsubdivided. The board acknowledged that the proposed lot 12.01 01. Um, that would be the uh that would have been the southern lot. Uh, that would have been undersized. Uh, would be similar in size to the existing lots on
the east side of Mount Lucas. This factor alone is not a public benefit. End quote. Uh, because of that previous denial, the board must consider the legal principle of res Judicata uh where the same relief that was previously previously sought and denied uh cannot
be sought a second time. Uh as this is a concept review uh as has already been discussed uh the board does not need to make a determination of whether uh resjudicata applies uh but should consider it in their discussion of the applicant's concept. Essentially it's a guide for uh the the board uh some
something for the board to uh uh think about and to help guide the uh uh the discussion as it is an important point uh for uh any application for this subdivision uh that would come before the board. Um as a guide we had provided a list of items in our January uh 6th
memo um that uh a list of items that must be demonstrated for resjudic to be applicable uh according to the Cox books on uh land use administration. I I'll I'll note before I go into the that list uh and it is in our uh memo um if anybody wanted has that pulled up and wants to follow along. Uh but I will
just note that um the coxbook uh is a useful guide. Uh but um because it is a legal concept and a legal principle uh we are going to defer to Mr. Müller and his legal expertise on the legal um you know you the the legal doctrine and
using uh the board using that uh for this uh uh for any application that might appear uh for this subdivision. Uh so first so going through that list of uh of items uh first the second application uh is substantially similar uh similar to the first uh two the same
parties or their privies are involved uh there must be no substantial change in the application itself or conditions surrounding the property. Four there must have been an uh an adjudication on the merits of the case and uh five both applications must involve the same cause
of action. uh the same applicants uh for the 2015 subdivision which was denied on the merits are involved in this case. Uh as this is a concept review of uh possible proposals, the board and the applicant should focus their considerations on if the proposals are substantially similar to the 2015
proposal. uh and if there are change conditions around the property. Uh the applicant uh needs to demonstrate how possible concepts are not substantially similar, how the application itself is substantially different and or how thei how the conditions surrounding the property are different. Uh it is noted
that res judicata has been found uh to apply in cases where the nonconformity of the requested variance relief uh is greater than what was originally denied. Um, so I'm not going to go into the actual concepts themselves that have been uh provided to the board. Uh, I'm
going to leave that to the applicants professionals. Uh, and also reserve additional comments until after their presentation. Uh, there is though one last comment that I do want to mention. Uh, section T10B-182 of the Princeton Code regarding subdivision design standards does
require sidelot lines to be at right angles or radial uh, to uh, street lines uh, in so far as is uh, practicable. Uh so the board should consider that requirement as the dividing lot line is not entirely radial to the street line
uh for the 2025 proposal concept, the size balance lots concept or the shared driveway option concept that the uh applicants professionals will be presenting in just a moment. Uh so uh in that regard uh the applicant would need to discuss justifications for not using
right angles uh or radial lines because again that is a design standard uh and it's a design standard because uh we we want to have lots that make sense. Um uh and so uh with that uh chairman Mr. Chairman I will turn it back to you uh
to uh uh move the uh move this forward. >> Thank you Nathan. Those uh thank you for that summary. Uh are there any other comments from members of the staff, our professional staff, or are there any questions from uh board?
>> Freddy, >> if I may, I just make a couple of comments on the the race judicata point because that's >> please Jerry >> clearly an important issue. Of the five points that Cox has on the second page of the staff memo, the fifth one is really irrelevant which says both
applications must involve the same cause of action in the context of a land use application and then a a second land use application. Um you're not talking about causes of action and that standard applies in other race judicata
situations. Um and then as number four, there's much adjudication on the merits. The fact that there was a decision um by the board, a substantive decision, that's enough to make it that's an adjudication on the merits as opposed to you know a denial
say by the board that uh where the applicant has failed to prosecute an application. Um and I think you know the the key issue here is going to be the issue of uh that that's in the case law which is
can can you file and prosecute successfully an application when the level of nonconformity is the same or as here is is even been exacerbated and I'm sure Mr. Kennedy is going to address that and I think it's going to be a key
issue on the raised judicata point for the board. >> Okay. Thank you, Jerry. >> Uh David, >> yeah, I have a question about both that last point and it was something that
uh Nathan mentioned in his report. This idea of the conformity um being greater >> non not the non-con nonconformity being greater. Um, you know, some of the uh or
at least one of the options that's before us tonight, you know, has uh instead of one conforming lot and another sort of drastically under undersized lot. Um, you know what? If
you had two undersized lots but that were closer to being conforming, is that legally a greater degree of nonconformity because there are two variances or is it how do you decide whether that's greater or lesser degree
of nonconformity? Yeah, I I think the board it would be within the board's purview to make the judgment in the situation you described where you have originally one lot which was conforming another was substantially non-conforming
and the second which have two non-conforming but they're they're coming pretty close to conformity. I think a board could consider that in terms of the um uh of the ratio to kind of situation. >> Thanks. Yeah, it's a very good question.
>> Okay, any other questions regarding this concept or anything else that Nathan has laid out before us? Okay, not seeing any. Uh, Mr. Kennedy, welcome. >> Mr. Happy New Year.
>> Happy New Year. Um, Ryan Kennedy from the office of Stevens and Lee here for the applicants who I believe are in the waiting room under the name Chuck. So, if it's possible to bring them over as well, um we will get some testimony um from them. And while that's happening, I'll just echo everything that you've
heard. First to to thank you for hearing us tonight. Um also, thank you to your your team um as always, one for encouraging and um having these types of concept reviews. It's not something that every it's it's in the MLUL, but it's not something that every town encourages. And it is very uh a
beneficial process when we have the opportunity to get feedback prior to investment um in an application. We understand it's not binding. U certainly will not push for any kind of straw polls. Um but again, to get that feedback prior to a larger investment is
is quite important. Um um and we're very much appreciative of the opportunity to do that. As as you heard, uh this is a concept review for a uh potential subdivision uh for a oversized lot in
the former townships uh R2 zone where two and a excuse me where one and a half acres is required. There's about two and a half here. Um, in 2015 the applicants uh did bring a a application that was different and I think the focus of tonight is whether what we're proposing
uh potentially and some of the options are um substantially different um uh to to bring forward and you know that that's the largely a focus of the feedback we're looking for this evening as well as some I guess we'll call them alternatives some of which do require
further deviations from at least one of the townships uh design guidelines as um Mr. Henderson had had noted, excuse me, as Mr. Mr. Foot had noted, apologies. Um uh that the the lot lines be radial or at kind of right angles and um one of
the things that has changed since 2015 essentially is the location and makeup of this lot in terms of trees. Um and what effort was made here as was not in 2015 is to recognize and and follow and
assign the treated or open space areas to each lot in ways that that make sense and do not create orphaned I want to say unusable areas. And in that way we think that the the um plans are are quite different um and beyond just the
percentages of of change and the physically different lot lines which we do believe are meaningful. It's the reason for it and which is that you know in in 2015 and and and I know there's let's say at least we thought there might have been two. Um I I too I'm sorry to see Miss Capazolei not here
this evening and and wish her best. uh um but uh one of the focuses while it didn't make the resolution in 2015 we understand was the impact on uh the trees on what would be the second lot and there's both been changes to that and we think a plan that recognizes and
um I'll use the word celebrates that's probably not correct but but follows a tree line and assigns a cleared area and a and a wooded area that does have some cleared areas uh to a new lot um and the size of the home that would be built in
that area is actually appropriately reduced by moving the lot line in that direction. uh which we believe very meaningfully and we'll talk about the history of the existing um home here um better um
shows and and includes separation between uh and we think a relatively important not big H um but little H historic structure uh structure where there is some history uh to create that separation um uh between the two in
a in a new lot that actually fits and is uh for the neighborhood actually quite large compared to uh the surrounding lots that are in the R2 zone. Um with that, you know, brief um summary, um I'd
like to um have uh Chuck and Ameilia introduce themselves briefly. I I know it's not necessary to swear them in um but if they could just briefly introduce themselves and we can um start our presentation. Chuck and Millian, >> thank you. >> Thank Thanks, Ryan. And uh thank you to
the board and uh its advisers for um reviewing our our concepts tonight and hopefully providing us with some usable uh feedback. Um and I guess in a very brief way and just point out that um Amelia and I have uh lived here in this
property for over 25 years. Um the um oldest part of the property that we restored and retained is actually dating back to 1874, but is um the original Mount Lucas Schoolhouse that was relocated to this this site in um uh
1920 or so. And uh we've done some changes, made some changes to the property, but um generally speaking, I would say they've been respectful and modest changes. um in particular saving
um the barn uh which is now our garage and workshop and and restoring the uh the original uh home. Um and um I guess um we don't have much more uh we we're obviously
available to answer any detailed questions about what we've been thinking about this property, which we've been thinking about it for quite a while. um and we love it very much and hopefully we can find a way to um make some further changes to it. So, thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. If it's all right, we uh we have provided some some exhibits. If it's okay for me to share my screen, I'll have uh Chuck and Amelia start taking us through and then we'll switch over to our uh engineer and planner to to finish up the concepts. >> That would be fine. Thank you very much.
Hopefully that um showed up for everyone and I'll I'll note this will be our one exhibit. It uh is 14 slides just for for reference >> and we'll mark we'll mark it electronically as A1. >> Thank you so much. So, um Chuck and
Amelia, um this I'll say >> I'm sorry, Mr. Kennedy, before you start, just for our records, uh this is the same as the one that you uh submitted a few days ago. >> Uh it is uh I sent you a PDF. This is the PowerPoint version of it, but there are no uh no no changes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Um so, uh Chuck and Ameilia, if you could on on slide two here, um this is a a clip of the Princeton zoning map, and that's your property in uh outlined in red in the R2 zone in the former township. >> That's correct.
>> All right. We'll start to talk about this um as we get to the other slides, but can you just briefly describe um you know the the zone you're in R2 is that kind of gerrymandered green zone, you know, to your left and then uh I suppose north. Um we could talk a little bit
about the the uses that are around you. Um >> yeah, so we as we mentioned earlier that we've been trying um to solve this riddle for some time. One one of the ways we could have solved it uh in theory would be to have expanded our lot
up to three acres from two and a half, but because the um all the adjacent properties were either other uses or um uh already undersized residential lots, we were unable to do that. Um there
there is a um uh you can see as as as Ryan pointed out the house the road leading up to our property. Our property is really the only I think the only compliant um lot that in the area in our neighborhood that that meets the
one and a half acre um minimum for that zone. Uh I I think there's not much more to say about this particular slide. >> Okay. U moving to the next one. U uh in yellow that's the you know approximate
um proposed subdivision um and your home outlined in yellow with with the I guess green pin u through part of it. >> Yeah, >> that's right. And I suppose this one will will help the board see and kind of
understand. I guess to the north that um red white disc that's New Jersey Americans uh water uh property. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And unfortunately that's the one. Now there was a question before and I think when we show one of our plans later uh that easement is is off property and and
kind of constrains New Jersey Americans uh property uh that that access easement's not on your property that's on on theirs. Uh I'm sorry, Ryan. What the um the question is regarding the adjacent
>> uh property to the east. >> So the the question about the New Jersey American property. Uh there was a a note about a access easement. I just wanted you to confirm that that's on the New Jersey American property and not on yours. >> I believe it's mostly on >> stairs.
>> Um the the path itself is for for sure on the adjacent property. right away might um but our property on that north side >> and then and then moving from there I guess clockwise the next property that touches yours that's the uh preserve
property that uh fortunately or unfortunately probably fortunately uh could not be uh um annexed to yours either >> you could and that was um that was part of the ultimate arrangement when Copperwood uh
was developed that that they would concentrate um that building on the I guess the northeast corner of our adjacency and leave the wooded area to the back um as conserved land
>> and then um going further down Mount Lucas Road uh you've got single family homes in in unders sized lots at that point. >> Correct. >> Okay. And for what it's worth, the Stewart Road um East Stewart Road extension uh
to the top of the slide is um also smaller lots um that was part of a development uh where I believe they set aside some of that um land to the west as uh preserved land as
well. Right. Um, next the the slide four is a aerial photo. Um, you talk a little bit about um, not the history. We've got a slide for that. But, you know, the the types of buildings that you've got in your home and and the arrangement of
them um that uh you know lead >> This is actually an interesting slide because relative to the in the summer it looks like a lot more green, but uh that's a winter photograph. And you can see the driveway and um uh parking area
in front of the old uh barn, which um uh is is at the bottom corner. uh that relatively large uh historic structure that was uh restored again when we first bought the the property. Um and then the
the uh >> the other building is our is our home on the you know above that um which uh as I mentioned we had made a couple of additions to over the years. And so, >> but I would like to point out that we
made we made the additions behind behind the building so that when you are driving down Mount Lucas Road, you can still see the original schoolhouse. And that was very important to us to keep that structure intact.
>> That actually shows up, I think, in the next slide pretty well. and and um so looking at the property to the right, the New Jersey American property, you can actually I think see in this photo where that access path right >> um and I'll note both what that is not
available necessarily for expansion. If it were though, um it may not help our situation. You know, the the um without I guess um compromising the ability to keep uh as we'll see in future slides, this home uh in in place u you know, as
as designed um in in all of the scenarios, uh the uh compliant or larger of the lots is the one where the existing house is, not because it necessarily wants to be bigger, but because of the placement of that lot. um and to if you were to find more land uh
on the New Jersey American side, which again is isn't necessarily available, um we would end up with a even, you know, a larger lot on one side and it would not essentially help um the new lot to be created unless we were to encourage
removal of the existing historic structures. Um if you could also maybe take a few moments, you know, a lot has happened um in in 10 years. um you know talk about some of the um again there was a lot of discussion about trees um
in uh the 2015 application and talk about what what has changed. I know there's been some areas where maybe it's it's filled out more and and you know unfortunately just with um ash trees or or loss of trees there's been been some change. Could talk a bit uh about that? that I know doesn't quite show in the
photo, but I know there's been some differences between 2015 and and today, >> right? I mean, one one thing that we did after the the 2015 uh experience was have the property surveyed. All the trees were tagged and surveyed um which
was useful uh in some in respects that we can talk about uh later. Um, but I I would say there's a few a few things that have changed is that a lot of sadly a lot of trees in Princeton are >> are dying and we've had a lot of trees
fall on their own. Um, we've we've taken down the minimum number of trees in the time we've been here only when they've u threatened the building or when they've been uh determined to be dead. Uh the only tree that um I would say one
significant tree, an ash tree that fell um on the property, we we managed to salvage and mill into um material to build one of the uh addition phases that we have in the back
of the house. So we haven't um you know we have basically not u changed the the wooded nature of the property except that it's changing on its own. Uh the the the piece of property that that we've talked about um potentially
subdividing off um has a lot of small dead and dying trees. It's not a a very healthy wooded area. And that's been confirmed by our tree survey by the and by the town um arborist who's visited here as well as some other tree people
that have looked at the the property. Moving to slide uh five. You know, this um is a updated I'll just call it, you know, survey that shows the existing property. But maybe we could just again um talk through um this is um if if if
if Oops, apologies. I clicked instead of pointed um it is my cursor um showing up on the screen, Chuck. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, this is the uh existing home uh when uh and then that barn you were talking about is u to the rear of the property.
>> That's right. >> Right. And uh I think we'll show it better on another slide, but this line here is kind of that approximate line of the more wooded area and the more cleared areas of the of the lot. >> That's right. Um I mean this this
property historically was a was a a farm as I understand it. Um and it um the part of the property that uh is to the south that's got trees on it at some
point was a piece of farmland. So those trees are more or less younger trees in that respect. Um but obviously hasn't been a a farm for a long time. Um the only other I um thing I might point
out there's a you can see where where we have our garden. uh sort of opposite of the barn. That that's a garden that >> um the prior owner had um initially developed as a um an organic garden
which >> and we've continued >> um that was made my wife happy because she's an avid gardener. And um so we've we've kept that uh where it was and continue to use it as such. uh which has weighed in in some respects to how we've
been thinking about possibly subdividing or where the lines would be. Now, um this next slide, slide six. This is not your intention particularly because it would build something on on top of where your current home is, but
we wanted to show uh what um what the zoning provides for this um for this property. So that a kind of an as of right design could include both a significantly sized ADU um as well as a 13,000 plus square foot home on the
site. >> Yeah. So, I I don't I didn't mention that um that I'm a restoration architect, and I don't I don't do new construction developments, but I I think
I can interpret zoning um uh zoning u requirements well enough to uh think think through what this lot could support. uh a lot this size, which um as I mentioned earlier, is one of the only
compliant lots uh in that area. Um the the way that the um numbers work, and again, this is not something we would want to do or see. And it's it's honestly one of the things we're trying to avoid happen on a
property this size. Um but you could you could put a very substantial home there. And if you could put a substantial home, you could then also put a substantial ADU. >> Um the next move to slide seven, talk a little bit about this a very interesting
um home and property that um that you've got. So I mean we spent a minute talking about what you know why uh why probably benefit well what's what's a positive about what what what's happened here and the bit of history in it and you know why there's a there's a reason to design
around that existing building when uh when the lots are being laid out. Well, um, you know, I think it goes back to again my my experience and training in history saving buildings and, uh,
this was, uh, a building we wanted to to save. Has its own charm. It's not an easy building to add on to. As it turned out, it was quite a complicated project, but as Amelia pointed out, um
we we we intentionally um designed the additions here so that the historic structure would would still have a presence on the street that was consistent with its history. And um try
to um keep the scale of the additions down. uh and let that little little building um still have have its uh presence on the on the street. Uh so this is just an old clip from
when the building was a school uh a one room schoolhouse. And when we bought it, it was a two-bedroom, oneb cottage. Um and that two-bedroom, oneb part is still pretty much the way it was. Thank you. Um, now chairman, if the
board has any questions for the applicants, I'm next would bring on our engineer and and and planner to kind of go through the plans. So certainly there's not going anywhere, but I certainly pause if uh there's um any any questions for them or uh >> surely. Thank you. Does anyone have any
questions for uh Mr. and Mrs. Dante? >> Um no, I'm not seeing any. So we can move on to your uh your other expert. >> Yep. Thank you so much. Um I know uh again it's not a formal hearing. Um we have Jim Camalik who's our professional
planner uh and engineer. Um if perhaps he's been spoken for this board many times. I don't think we have to have him qualified but uh maybe he just briefly remind the board of you know his um what his role is in a project like this as an introduction. >> Sure. Thank you.
>> Uh good evening everyone. Jim Kamala, Kencho resources professional planner and professional engineer. And um I've been working with uh the D Santos and Mr. Kennedy on the sub this two lot subdivision um and in specific some of
the details we'll talk about tonight as to the configuration of the lots um what's on the lot and uh and why we're crafting this orientation. >> Great. Thank you. So, so Jim um slide eight uh you know we attempted to put
both the 2015 and our our call our main um 2025 concept on the same you know plane so we can you know talk about one the the reasons why designs were were shifted uh and you know I'll talk a little bit about the impact and of of
the reasoning for the thinking that we think is positive um and you know the the actual physical differences so So, uh, Jim, the the 2015 design, that's the one that's outlined, uh, with the the red dash line,
>> right? That's correct. Yeah. >> All right. And, uh, and blue is is what we're proposing now essentially. Correct. >> Yep. Uh and that green line that's the the natural uh wooded kind of tree edge approximately of what um what's shown um
I mean not what's shown here but >> yeah that's a consideration of of the wood line which I think as part of the prior application um that was done by um the do Santos and some other parties
previously uh there was no tree survey and I think that that was a concern. Oh, what will the impacts to the trees be? Um, where are they? How does it respect the location of the trees? So here um you can see that that green line
highlights the general area of where um the trees are and then also importantly um down at the bottom of the page there's that open more open cleared area um associated at the rear of the garden
which when you enter the site that's really part and parcel of um the main developed portion of the lot and the rear yard area. So that was um maintained the majority of that in the context of the lot on the right or lot
1202 which is 1.59 acres um to be maintained as part of that lot instead of that red line diagonally sort of traversing um that open area and then cutting it off from the main lot. And I think the
theme here is the applicants are looking to um pay deference to the historically developed portion of the lot. Um where their existing home is, where the barn is, where the
existing driveway access driveway is, which is going to remain in the proposed condition. Um and then take a look at the new lot. how can that best fit and what makes most sense for a modest home, which was, you know, their intention
here for this lot. Um, as you can see on the left hand side, uh, where we we have an access driveway that's, um, that's sort of on the left hand side of the lot, similar to the access to the existing lot, which is also on the left
hand side of um, the lot that the existing home home is on. And um the location of that driveway was located appropriately to avoid uh tree impact. So um the apron was placed at that
location and traverses to the rear. And then in the area of um the less dense area of trees in the central portion of the lot is where we showed where proposed dwelling could go in the center of this uh 0.9 acre lot. uh which again
is slightly uh smaller than uh I think what was previously proposed which was closer to an acre um um but it's still in the context of the size of lots in this same zone that are
immediately uh to the left you know for several lots as you go to the left of um the subject property here >> Jim if I could just um pause for a second I I I don't know if can't see it on all the screens, but I I believe Mr.
Foot has his hand raised. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to recognize him before we got too far. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Chairman. Um, just a point of clarification just for uh sake of clarity for uh the board members. Um, you have listed here the 0905 acres. Uh,
I just want to make that clear that the 0905 is for the 2025 proposal. Um, and the point the.996 is the number that would have been for the 2015 um uh the the the denied 2015 uh
subdivision application. So, just wanted to to clarify that uh that point and make sure that that's uh clear for everybody because that I was looking at and getting a little confused myself. So, just wanted to put that out there. >> Right. >> Yep. These are the proposed numbers. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, thank you. So, so Jim, what
we're looking at is the proposed subdivision though with in red the 2015 overlaid on top of it. Is that maybe >> That's correct. >> Yes. >> And and if we could just talk a little bit though um uh in in comparing uh the
two. Um so it's it's about a 10% difference physically uh in the in the numbers between the uh um about 0.9 and the just slightly under one acre from 2015. >> Yes, that's correct. and and um with the
existing home located on the um proposed lot 1202 um essentially our our thinking, you know, not blocking so much but but ultimately being the existing development that we're looking to keep that ultimately reduces the the size of
the home that could be built um on the u on the proposed new lot of 12.01. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean based based on the theoretical F that would that would reduce the size a maximum size home >> and um Princeton has a concept of uh
proportional F for existing um uh undersized lots but uh a recent um trend or practice for which we would consent that that would not apply to a newly created underside lot. So perhaps a a further reduction in in size of what
a new construction could be from the 2015 proposal. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Um I'll I'll also note again, you know, so the between the and we focused a bit of the reason of following the um the
tree line and allocating the open space versus wooded space to the lots where they feel like to naturally belong. Um, does this arrangement also create a a perhaps a more appropriate well or or a larger buffer between the historic
portion of that um existing home and where the lot line would be. >> Yeah. I mean, I think when you look at the sideyard and the way that it it buffers the the historic portion of the home that we had talked about, um, we
felt that this align would be this this particular alignment would be most appropriate because it does provide some buffering from the driveway, creates a separation and really um, at 0.9 acres in our view um, it's more than
sufficient area for a single family dwelling, especially in the context of of the surrounding lots. >> Yeah. Um Jim, can you also talk a little bit while we're on this slide about I guess your understanding of the um the nature of the of the the angle of the
lot line is designed. Um I know there's some it's very clear that in the upcoming um plans that we'll be showing the other options that they are not radial or or perpendicular. Was there intent here to to do that for this lot?
Well, I mean obviously there there was an intent or you know an attempt to do that. You can see that we are perpendicular there at the rear of the lot. U but the reality is we have two lines that are not parallel. So you know
based upon the geometric constraint um we're not going to have a straight lot line that'll be you know perpendicular to the rear and to the front. Um again this is a balancing of um some buffering
to the main home site on the right you know with that historic element um number one and then for sort of a a realistic look at okay well is this appropriate I would just point out that
the existing lot line to the left where you have the red dashed line at the street um in the upper left hand corner, that's not 90°, that's about 100°. Um, then if you look at the upper right hand corner of the existing lot, that's
not 90°, that's 55°. And actually, if you looked at the tax map and you looked at the side lot lines of the various lots as you go further to the left down Mount Lucas, they're all pretty much parallel
to the blue line that we're showing you tonight. So we think that that's consistent also with the neighborhood where in reality when you're on the road and you view this theoretical point in space um you can't discern it. It's not
viewable. Um but it is in keeping with the context of the neighborhood and it's it's also dealing with this these geometric complexities which currently the two front lot lines where they adjoin the side are not radial or perpendicular either. So for those
reasons, we do, you know, see this as a unique condition and we did what we could as practicable quote unquote. Um but we feel it's appropriate. Now in in developing this, we also looked at um um some other um options.
Of course, this uh this one is that that same um concept but with without the overlay on it. And I don't want to dwell in this, Jim, but if there's any anything you want to point out here. Obviously on on the left you um conceptually laid out a potential home and storm water features to show where
they could possibly go in places where there'd be minimal or or or little removal of trees. >> Yes. And then there's some privacy of the driveway relative to where the existing driveway is, you know, um on our larger lot. And then in the location
where there's less trees, that's why it was located over there on the left, excuse me, on the left side. >> Moving to slide 10. This is just the bulk table here, but um noting really the only varian >> just to point out, yeah, that's the you
know, notwithstanding the lot area here, um everything else is fully conforming. >> And um sorry, just another question of clarification. So that is this this table is specifically for what's being called the 2025 concept.
>> This is just the one where it's the 0.90 >> uh well there was a a slight discrepancy I wanted to ask about as well. There's 0.905 on one page and then on the previous slide you had 04. Um so I just wanted to ask about why there was that difference. I know it's
very slight but um was that just difference in rounding or >> it just could have been rounding. There was no intentional difference there. So, okay. Really meant to be was meant to be the same. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Um we also in developing this explored
some other um ways of looking at at the site that may you know for which we'd like some feedback from the board. So this one we're calling the the the balanced lot sizes that you know create two lots that are um while neither would be conforming and two um two variances
would be required um in it would more more balance I suppose the left um the sizing between the lots so that they would all more mirror what's uh what's predominant in the neighborhood. Jim, anything you'd like to note on on this? Um,
>> no, ju just to say that, you know, adding an angle point in that sideline, you know, would result in um a more radial type of sideline approaching the street and then the lot area could be more um distributed between the two
lots. You know, if if this was a preference to the board, again, you can see that that lot line is somewhat, you know, somewhat closer to the existing driveway and to the existing home. Um, but that's, you know, this was prepared for the board to weigh in on and to
provide some feedback, um, relative to just a different orientation that could be feasible here. >> Can you comment on why there is the kink >> uh, in the side in the dividing line? Uh,
>> sorry. >> Rather than going straight from the street to the rear line. um just to be perpendicular to the rear as well. I mean really just to to have 90 degree angles at the rear lot line.
>> I mean is that seen as being responsive to that design uh criterion that uh Nathan mentioned in his summary. Yeah, that's what I was saying to, you know,
if we move that lot line over and then obviously this this cleared area and this, you know, it was mentioned this organic garden that's been maintained over the years now would not be part of sort of the homestead property or the
existing property. It would be part of the new lot. Um, you know, that that's that's one of the negatives from the homeowners perspective of where they spend their time in this, you know, their outdoor gardening area. Now, it's going to be on the new lot. That's why
this was not preferred. Um, and a negative from their standpoint. Um, so we don't we don't necessarily think that taking that much lot area away from the traditional home site on the right, you
know, is warranted. But again, we wanted to provide another look and just some other options for the board to weigh and and see if there was some consensus. >> And Jim, just so I I understand that response to to Mr. 's first part of the question is the idea was in spirit was
to have the top part of the lot line respect and be radial to the to that side and then the the bottom to be 90° to the back to to have that kind of uniformity that whether that's technically the the you know for such an
interestingly shaped trapezoidal parallelogram kind of lot that was the attempt was to respect that right >> promoter has her hand Freddy, you're on mute. I think >> um are there any conservation areas on
these lots themselves? And there was something about wetlands. Are there wetlands or wetland buffers? Because I I know they said you should apply for one in a letter of interpretation, but it wasn't clear to me whether that was because they actually were something there to verify there's nothing >> there. Um there are no conservation
easements on the lot. Number one, there was a mapped uh there was an area on one of the state maps of a potential wetland area at the rear of the newly proposed subdivided lot. We've
taken a look at that. It's in a highland upland area and it slopes down to the rear um onto the adjacent property. So we don't see any evidence of that and certainly as part of the subdivision process and the condition of approval we would get an LOI of an absence
determination just confirming that with DO uh D but >> you thought there was something there or you thought there was you know you want confirmation there was nothing. >> Well we're pretty confident that we have no issues with that just based upon the lay of the land and the conditions and
the vegetation and the topography. Um but certainly as part of a condition of approval we can have that verified with D pay at that point in time just to give the board comfort. >> I think it also might be a requirement of any building that goes in uh and not
just a uh a matter of uh of a condition that the board places. I think it would be something that uh regardless of whether the board uh wanted it or not, I think it would be required anyway is my understanding. Uh I'm not in the engineering side, but I just wanted to you know I I believe that's the way that
it works. >> For sure. I think you you you've got that exactly right. uh the I guess the the point I think we try to make one is that you know at a concept stage we haven't made that investment fully yet and and our our belief from looking at records and adjacent properties and
everything to that effect is we we don't expect it to impact um the um usability of that part of that lot um from from from the proposed >> but certainly would I >> was just trying to figure out whether or not you had reason to you know you thought there was something there or you just thought you'd go for an LOI and
that's the end of it and that's fine. Um so Jim then um slide 12 um we have another um thought here um for for the for the site um that includes a couple of different
um features. won an even more dutiful attempt to follow uh the the tree line and allocate the the cleared versus um wooded areas to from one lot, you know, a lot line that's um radial but closer to a driveway to to better facilate a
shared driveway >> and I think what we've called kind of a restriction or or or easement that would um you know essentially ensure that no second driveway be built um on the property. You want to take us through this one? Yeah, I mean I think you've
you summarized it well. Starting at the rear of the lot again, that would keep that open cleared garden area as part of the call it the homestead portion of the lot or the existing lot and then
basically jogging that side lot line um up to the existing driveway to make it as as radial as we can. But we would probably want to follow the existing driveway which is not radial to the street. Um but but again it's it's just
a it's it's close. Uh and then instead of having two driveway entrances, this concept would have a shared driveway entrance where the new um people accessing
uh from Mount Lucas would come down the existing driveway and then peel off to the new dwelling. Um and then we would have the option of a say a 20 to 25 ft um conservation
easement behind the rightofway line. So there would be even more because there is um some vegetated wooded area within the right of way and that would tend to keep an existing um sort of wooded strip
um which is what you see today and it's rather overgrown with you know some understory vines and things like that. Um but that would um avoid uh an additional break in the the vegetation
along the front which we saw could be an asset. I mean it could be a desire and something that the applicant was willing to to discuss and consider. Okay. So, we have this basically consolidated access with one
one driveway, but then this irregular um shape of the lot, which you know may not be uh as in keeping with the the ordinance with relatively simple side lot lines,
you know, so that um that may not uh be desirable. Um but this this option also kept uh that open area to the rear which they use now as part of the main lot. So this is a bit of a hybrid with one entrance.
>> Nathan. >> Yeah. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Um about the conservation easement along the frontage of lot 12 uh this proposed lot 12.01. Why is it only being proposed for or thought of for this one as
opposed to the other uh concepts? Um because it seems like it might be a good thing for other uh concepts. Uh so just curious about why why is it only shown for this one? >> I guess the main reason was because we felt like we were not penetrating it at
all because we were using the shared driveway. So, um, then the rest of the frontage as it quote unquote would not be disturbed, we thought putting an, you know, a landscape easement, maybe that would be
a better um, a better label for it across the frontage um, would go with this concept, but that doesn't mean on the other concept aside from the driveway entrance that that couldn't be contemplated. So that is a you know something that we can consider but
that's that's why it's on this one because we only had one penetration the existing one. >> Okay. >> I'll also note and I think maybe to further respond to that that it's something that could perhaps be applied to the other concepts. Um you know we we viewed this element um as as fitting
best on this one but perhaps would could be an element to any of the uh the three uh pieces that we've put together if they had a a shared driver. one was the most naturally um uh indicative to that shared driveway. Um but conceivably even with the other lot configurations, there
could be a shared driveway and that um front um uh tree line could be, you know, permanently preserved essentially, which was the the intent of the application with showing it here. >> Thank you, Alvin. Alvin, you're on mute.
There you go. in in this shared driveway. Is the garden preserved in this in this alternative? >> No. >> Is it? >> Yes. >> Yeah, it's preserved with the the existing lot to the right. like it would
stay with the larger lot um with the applicant's home and their out building and you know the rest of their their arrangement that they have currently. >> Hey Freddy. >> Yeah.
>> Um I'm still I asked you about conservation areas before and you said there were none. I mean, a conservation area typically is a legal legal area set aside as conserv I mean, it's a formal easement. It's not just we put it on here because but it doesn't
affect anything else. We don't know whether it affects anything else or not. I mean, we'll take your word for it, but it should be on everything. And I'm assuming that you're not planning on putting some kind of conservation easement in the cleared area because that's the only way that you could really preserve that is some kind of an
agreement to keep it cleared. Otherwise, if it's on Well, if it's all on this property, fine. It's you can do whatever you want. But if you put it that part of it is on the other property, they can do whatever they want unless you have some kind of agreement that they can't or
that allows her to come on and do recording there even though it's on their property. >> Um I'm not sure um >> what your question is, but I'm happy to answer it. It's just that there are no
existing conservation easements on the lot like currently in because we haven't done anything yet. Number one and we were just offering >> one minute. It already exists does it not? >> No. >> No, it doesn't. >> This is a conservation ement.
>> There is there's none currently. The suggestion is that in thinking about a shared driveway and the applicants thinking about the current, I'll call it street scrape. Um that we we thought about essentially permanently dedicated through a new
easement that um front part of the the new lot as as being undevelopable to protect that tree line essentially and force the driveway to go elsewhere so that there would be less visual impact or change there. So, it would be a new easement that we would um permanently
dedicate as part of this or or even the other options. >> And then what about the area that's cleared here that you if you don't, you know, put a have a lot line like this, so part of it is is on the other person's property, then they can do what
they want with presumably, >> right? But the line delineates whose property is whose. So on this one, but on the other the other ones it did not >> property part of that garden, >> right? That's why this was not really
preferred by the applicant because they would like to maintain that area of the rear yard that they currently use, >> but we were just throwing ideas out there. >> Which of these is their I don't know if we've seen all of them. Which is their preferred?
Uh the first one really is the one that they're we're most serious about here with the blue line >> and and Mr. promoter to to your point I think that is one of the main reasons that that drove the change from the 2015 plan. Um, yes, you're correct. In that
2015 plan, the new lot owner would have that cleared area, some of it would be kind of um outside of the building setback actually, and you know, something could be built there and it would be kind of oddly positioned or feeling like it went with the other lot. And that a lot of that
revenueing that drove the changing in the the lot line and the reallocation that that we thought through in in revisiting the property. Uh Pauly had her paly please. >> Um just going back to if you could go
back to that uh the applicant's preferred um division. >> Yeah, this one here. Yeah, this this is the Yes, this is the preferred. Yes. Okay. So the argument here is that this
division will result in less tree loss than what was proposed in 2015. Well, in 2015, I would say that it I wasn't present, but from what I've heard from the applicants is that it was rather ambiguous
because at the time, a detailed tree survey had not been proposed when they applied for the application. >> Okay? >> And there was discussion at the board where the board, I think, were a little apprehensive of, well, how
much tree removal will there be? um where are the trees? How big are they? For example, um so since then they did a tree survey and >> e even in 2015, so I'm sorry to interrupt. Even in 2015, it was only a
proposal to subdivide the lots, not a proposal to build anything yet. >> Correct. Correct. Which is >> even now the proposal is just a subdivision. >> Right. But we're trying to fill in the blanks and and give an understanding of
all the different elements here. So that's why the house is located in the middle where the trees are less dense. And in actuality, many of the trees are 8 in to 10 in. They're successional very young trees, >> right?
>> Um it's not old growth and very dense forest. It's a very >> Okay. >> You know, a lower quality. >> I see. Okay. And and maybe just to to to piggyback on that, it's less that this design will necessarily though the
likely house pl placement will result we think in fewer trees being removed. It's less that the the change in the lot line from 2015 results in less trees, but it logically follows a tree line, whereas 2015 ignored it and kind of cut through the middle of where the trees, creating
this odd orphaned open space, cleared area that really shouldn't have been associated with the existing uh with the new house. It shouldn't associated with the existing. So we we corrected that and built a lot line that better follows
um certainly in this concept and in the latter one that better follows that existing tree line and respects it and and and chooses to to split the properties based on that natural feature rather than just arbitrarily cutting through it.
>> Okay. Okay. Council >> Yeah. I just want to comment having been uh on the board in 2015 and being present for that discussion. Not that I claim to have perfect recall of what it
was 10 years ago. I think that the concern was tree loss. It wasn't how the lot lines related to the existing tree line. And Paulie has uh keyed right in on the the crucial issue, which is
if we subdivide, no matter where the lot line goes, there's likely to be a lot of tree loss on the newly created lot. And to locate the house where there are few trees, we all know that a heck of a lot of trees come down for
construction access. um you know, regardless of how many are actually within the footprint of the house. So, I sort of want to I don't know how many more options there are to look at, but I think that
>> Yeah. Okay. I then I'd like to sort of start the deliberation a little bit and say I think that it's very hard for me to imagine that this which has uh
this is clearly more nonconforming because the small lot is even smaller than it was. uh I don't see how this option gets around res judicata because I think that this idea of following the tree line is
was not pertinent to the conversation in 2015 and I don't think it's really pertinent to any conversation we would have today. Uh I personally feel like the
option with the balanced lot sizes is the the only one that uh both could be argued to be less non-conforming because the two lots, you
know, are closer to being conforming. So even though you need two variances, they're both close a lot closer to being conforming. Uh I think the regularity of the lot line is a virtue in relation to
the the design standard that Nathan talked about in his introduction. And um I I think that that's the version that is most likely to solve the res
judicata issue and also be most desirable from a planning standpoint in in terms of um having the lot sizes be as close as they can to uh you know to the um the
underlying zoning, which by the way I think we all agree is sort of not appropriate to the facts on the ground. And um I I think everyone's aware we're we're looking at redoing overhauling the
zoning. It seems quite possible to me that this area could be reszoned to be 1acre lots. It feels unlikely that it'll be reszoned to be 75 acre lots, for example. So,
you know, this is pure speculation. I don't know exactly how the re the zoning overhaul is going to impact this neighborhood, but I think it would be very reasonable for it to create 1acre
lots. Uh not reasonable to think it would create smaller lots than that. So, uh, so having a subdivision here which has one undersized lot that's actually under an acre um feels
less likely to to be conforming in some future uh zoning that I can imagine in the in the neighborhood. Corn, just let me thank you. That's that's exactly the type of feedback we hope to get at a concept review like this. Much appreciated. Um, if I could ask if it's possible one follow-up question. um if
it were to be and I know this is a legal issue. I'm not going to look to debate it um this evening that the the um there the case law from the it's the early 60s about that making it more non-conforming if just putting that aside if that were to be resolved in in a different way um
legally. Um would you feel um you know the question before the board becomes is this substantially different uh 2015 versus 25. Uh certainly heard you on uh the balance lot being substantially different factually. Um do you have a
thought uh does um >> I don't feel like this one is I don't feel like this one is substantially different. >> Thank you. I much appreciated. Thank you. >> Mayor Freda. >> Yeah. Thanks. Uh, from a common sense point of view, looking at the size of
all the neighboring lots, I'm pretty content with slide eight. I mean, the the required zoning is like the the Witherspoon Jackson area. The required zoning versus what
you exist is totally different. So, uh, again, common sense and logic say to me if they're going to give us a lot that is very similar to most of the existing lots south of this property and the lots across the street on Stewart.
I, as one person, am pretty content with that thought. Olive. >> Um, so I guess this is a question for Jerry. Um, you know, is
looking at this, there's not between the 2015 proposal and the current preferred proposal which is slide nine. Do I understand that correctly? >> Right, >> Ryan? Okay. Okay.
>> I mean, there's not a huge difference. Um, but the balance lot sizes make sense. Um, the straight line dividing the two lots makes sense. That will make for
friendly neighbors. Um but is it different enough from 2000 to 2015 so that um we don't get into this legal loophole? I I think it's a it would be a tough pro
to ho to prevail on the raise judicata question um with this their preferred scheme because clearly um there's very little change from a um subdivision application
which has already been denied. That's the basic issue. Um and uh you still have the same thing So I I think it's a it would be a tough case. >> So then comparing 2015 to slide 12 which
has the shared driveway the conservation easement would that be that's clearly more different in my view. I think that's that's a more of a um a departure from what had been
considered in 2015. >> That's true. Yeah. and David. >> Yeah. I I also um want to say or you know want to remind the board uh as noted in the staff
report that while this proposed dwelling that's shown on all all of the varying options looks modest um with a nearly 1 acre or a 0.9 acre lot. there's like a
5,000 square foot house that can be cited on uh even on the smaller lot. And so I you know I want to mention that really the
the deliberation that happened in 2015 was like you know this is the ridge it's an environmentally sensitive area. Um, anything that permits new development on
this lot is sort of going against smart growth principles where we want to have the growth be closer into town and away from environmentally sensitive areas. And I think that that was really
the guiding factor that controlled the decision of the board in 2015. I don't know that the board will feel the same today. Um, but board members should comment on that uh as well because while
I uh as I mentioned, I like the balanced lot subdivision from a planning standpoint, it still creates, you know, more density up on the ridge here. It will create significant loss of
trees. Admittedly, small small trees, you know, not old growth trees. It's not not it's not precious uh uh natural habitat, but um those are the
factors that went into that decision then was if we're creating a new building lot, we're adding more density on the ridge, which is sensitive environmentally. David, may I ask was that the public benefit question that seemed to be
residing according to the staff report uh the board in 2015 found that there was no public benefit to dividing the lot. Would you say that that is part of the same argument? Uh
yes, but the you know the current board could come down in a different place in the sense that I think there is a benefit to having lot sizes more closely aligned with uh or you know with the facts on the
ground. In other words, this goes back to this what what Mark was saying. you know, all the other lots on this stretch in this zone are undized. So, the zoning is clearly a little bit out of whack. >> And there's a public benefit to
um correcting a misappri mislication of zoning constraints on this lot given the development pattern here. So I
don't think the board at that time considered that public benefit and all they considered was the public detriment of the loss of trees. >> Okay. >> So it's a it's a new conversation if we can get past the rest judicata issue.
>> Um and I I sort of feel like it can go either way and I'd love to hear from other board members um how they feel about this development on the rich issue which I think was crucial at that time. Right. We have uh Jack Taylor, Nathan Foot, and Freddy
Freddy Pearl Martyr. Jack. >> Yeah. Let me look back at the history of this situation because basically I agree with the common sense comments of both Mark and David. It seems to me that the
original zoning was based around the existence of a farm that was a function of a time and a place and yet evolved into an even larger property but still placed on a property which was
inconsistent with those in the neighborhood. And in other words, the ne the neighborhood in a sense redefined as a practical matter this original farm property in such a way that yes, there
are development opportunities. As a practical matter, there is no alternative to being in some practical ways not in complete and perfect compliance with zoning. But it's material that we can find a compromise.
And a compromise that leads to property, a taxable property, an addition to the land that preserves the natural, the natural, the the trees, uh, whatever wet land there may still be. It seems to me that it's the only kind of option that
makes sense. And under that sense, Jerry, I would I would want to go back to the definition of race judicata and and doublech check whether the traditional definition used is still
applicable to a specific piece of property with specific historical size, shape, and construction. >> I think the answer is yes. And I think everything you say, Jack, is is is a good point, but it
it's still we still have that difficulty of of race judicata. If this had all been if that was if that had all been considered in 2015, I think the board legitimately could have approved the subdivision. But
given that it didn't, that's the issue we're dealing with. Now an alternative by the way and may maybe the sensible alternative if they don't get legislative relief is to challenge the zoning that is arbitrary and capricious just for the reasons you gave.
>> That's where I would go Jerry. I think that we have a situation that if you're right if this really truly a problem then it should be challenged because as a as a matter again of common sense
>> this shouldn't be the case. Yeah, >> it is something that should be challenged and it be considered constructive to do so by the community, the neighbors, and certainly the owners of the property today. >> Thank you, Jack. Uh Nathan,
>> yeah, I just wanted to put a like a a finer point on something on uh something that's been coming up. Um so so I don't I don't want to necessarily say want to say that there's two separate things that we need to consider. Obviously the big one is the
resjudicata um and the the question of substantially different uh and this just comes up in the context of that uh slight zigzag um concept the last concept that they presented. Um is it substantially different? You know,
you can make that argument that it is uh what I want to put a fine the the fine point on is that yes, it might be different, but we also have to look at the planning side of things and the design side of things. You could have a you know just an an extreme example of this. You could have a zigzag going all
the way down. You know, multiple zigzags in the uh the dividing line. Is it substantially different? Probably. But is it good planning practice? No. Uh and and so that's something that to to keep in mind that you know there's two separate common tracks almost that uh we
want to be aware of. >> Yeah. And Nathan I I'm glad you raised that because it's a very good point. Even if the board decided they can get over the raised judicata hump that doesn't sound that doesn't mean okay everything's fine. It's it's been
approved. you still got to address the design issues um and whether they're entitled to the to variance relief um and as part of that the the all design considerations which is what Nathan was saying and I so we got we got to still remember there are two different issues
here and resolving the first one if if the board thinks it could be resolved raikata just just opens the door to the second one it doesn't resolve the second one okay >> Freddy and then Justin, >> um I have two points. One, uh Jack
mentioned the um appealing the decision. It's been 10 years now. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on something like this, but they might have difficulty at this time. Jerry, that you don't mind. I have no idea. And then the other thing is on the flip side, if we're worried about trees, we just, you
know, Princeton, I think, did fin did pass the tree ordinance. So that yes, they're going to have to take down a lot of trees, but they're probably going to have to put up a lot of trees also. Now, they'll be new. They're not the grown trees, etc. But but there is a quid proquo of them on trees, a possible quid
proquo. And Jerry, I leave it up to you. And I don't even know if this is the time to discuss that, but I don't know what the statute of limitations is for something like this. >> Yeah, it's a good question. >> I mean, >> I think they could come back in. I I don't know that there's any statute of
limitations on the raat issue, but it's a good it's a good question. I don't think there is, but but uh certainly the contrary could be the case and there's really very little case law in this. >> Uh just Justin, you had your hand up.
Did you take it down or >> uh No, chairman. Uh I still have it up. >> Okay, go ahead, please. >> Thank you. Thank I just want to touch on something that Jack mentioned as well. And and again, this might be something more for that second part that Jerry and
and Nathan just described, not necessarily the res judicata part, but once we get to variances potentially down the line. Um, so Jack mentioned something um uh about the zoning potentially being based on the farm. Um,
and I actually don't think that's the case. Uh, because as was described before, this parcel is about 2.5 acres. So logically, if it was based on that, the minimum lot size would be about 2.5 or or something just under it. Uh whereas it's the um the one and a half
that was one and a half acres that was described earlier. Um and then as was described by Mr. Kennedy, the lots to the south of this, which probably predate zoning, are all under that 1.5 acres. You know, some are one, some are
1.2, some are a little under. Um and then the Steuart Road East ones that are directly across uh also in the R2. Um those are about uh almost uniformly uh 2/3 of an acre that I believe were part of a cluster development. Um so I say
all of that to say I don't know why the minimum lot size is what it is. There does not appear to be a true logic here um for what it is. Um, I don't know if we could even necessarily go back and and try to
figure out what that was any more so than, you know, when these lots were being divvied up into zones 50 60 years ago. Um, someone said 1.5 is good for R2 and these ones are going to be in the R2. Um, so that is the the
what I think is the likeliest case um rather than any sort of um logic uh on where we got that 1.5 number. >> Okay. Thank you for that. >> Uh Dave, council. Yeah, I think this is actually just
um seconding what Justin just said, but I know that I have heard a lot of older Princetonians like having non-conforming lots
because they like having a say in what their neighbors are allowed to do on their property. And so having lots of undersized lots means lots of variances, lots of notice to neighbors, lots of opportunity to uh stick your nose into
other people's business. Um, so you know, I'm not saying the 1.5 acres doesn't make sense some places in town, but I think when placing neighborhoods into zones, there was a lot less concern
about trying to make sure that most of the lots were conforming when placing lots into various zones uh, back in the day. But I'm pretty sure these preceded these lots all preceded the zoning. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you for that. Uh before we uh go on, Mr. Chumalik, uh have you finished your presentation there? I think you still have one more slide to go. >> I'm not sure. Brian, I think we were pretty close to >> We were right. >> I'll say we we didn't actually get to
this slide that um I I believe Mr. Leco and um Councilman Cohen, a few other commenters kind of made this point. You know, this this slide shows the non-conforming R2 lots that surround what we're talking about. And I don't think we need to belabor that point um
any further. Um um I I'll note um you know we didn't really you know because of the the res issue and and focusing on what is factually different I I think in the board's mind as well as generally what elements of the um revised
proposals you'd like. We we didn't you know and it's a concept we didn't get into our planning testimony. There's a lot of great feedback we got that will guide us there. You know Mr. Malik is a planner but you know we're not going to jump into that. And honestly looking back at the uh minutes and resolution
from 2015, it didn't look like that really happened. Um there have been some changes um certainly in Princeton since then and uh to Councilman Cohen's point, not just the board, but ultimately the underlying pieces of things. While this zoning hasn't changed, some other things have. And we're not going to dwell on
that this evening, but as part of our planning testimony, should one of the things advance, we would certainly do that. There's a lot of pieces of John just this neighborhood um and this unique property that we believe that the updated plan will certainly advance. And you know there was a a note about the lack of public benefit. It seemed to us
that there wasn't really much of a argument made there to be honest with you in 2015. Um and we certainly have a lot of information to do that now. So I just want to give the board some confidence that um we would wouldn't be leaving you out to dry there. We would certainly, we just haven't shown you that part of the work because it's concept, but certainly would be doing an
elaborate planning testimony as part of that. And again, I'll just say very much appreciate the uh the feedback on what types of things people may be comfortable or think to be different enough um to even think about on the res the substantive pieces about what what
parts of a revised plan seem to to make sense um and and very appreciative of that. So, thank you. >> Well, thank you for that. But we're not quite done yet. Uh we're going to open up for public comment and see. We only have three members of the public uh available. But if anyone wants to make a
comment, please raise your hand at this time and we'll bring you over. Not seeing anybody raise their hand. Uh so we will uh go back for final deliberation I guess on if there's any other comments from
the board. Uh I think we've uh given this a pretty thorough go over. Uh there's a lot to lot to think about uh on Mr. Kennedy and the uh the denta's part. Uh
but uh does anybody have any additional comments? Okay, not seeing any. Uh Mr. Kennedy, thank you very much. Mr. and Mrs. Mr. Santis, thank you very much for your time. Uh we
appreciate it and uh we'll we'll see how we move forward with this. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very much appreciated the feedback. I think we got more uh than we expected and uh much appreciated that we we got that this evening. Um and again to your professionals as well for your help
throughout this process. Um much appreciated. wish other every other town would allow um uh the kind of um discretion and and feedback that you guys give and we're very appreciative of it. >> Well, thank you very much for that. Okay.
Uh with no other business on the agenda, David, would you like to >> I would move to a journ. >> Can I can I ask a question? >> Oh, absolutely. before we before we part ways um just because I I and I do appreciate also the the the various
comments although I um I don't know that we have a a clear consensus of how to move forward um we can talk about that with our team um but I am curious about just from a procedural point of view and
I'm not an attorney either um if we were to pick one of these these three alternatives and um make a formal application uh with with that. Um is it am I correct
in understanding that that's when this um res judicata uh determination would be made and that it would be made by a vote from the board or is this a how how exactly does that if if you know
um how exactly does that happen? >> It would be made go ahead please. It would be made by by the board by a vote of the board >> and it would be made um >> pursuant pursuant to to this sort of a
discussion and review of a specific plan at that time. >> Specific plan, right? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> There's no other way to do this that's >> addresses that issue independently in
some way. Uh Paul, you have a couple >> I guess you know um I just want to clarify or and this is I guess a question for Jerry again. So if and when the applicant comes before the board with an application for subdivision on
the same lot, >> is it the board that will then determine whether they're seeking the same relief they sought before or whether they're seeking different relief? Right. So it would be our the board's decision. >> Our decision.
>> Yeah. And it's not just the same relief. Uh it in fact if it if it's um more non if the board the board could find it's more non-conforming. Um but but it's in any event it is the board's decision. Um, let me ask I think the question a
slightly different way or uh Chuck's question a slightly different way. Is is there any provision in our land use code that would allow severing
the question of resjudicata from a full fully engineered site plan submission. Uh so you know obviously there's a lot of expense in engineering drawings and
and you know fully vetting the design. I'm not sure all of that information is needed by the board to make the resjudicata decision. And the question is, could there be some kind of a I mean, I know I had an issue at a certain
point where I went to the zoning board for an interpretation of zoning ordinance. It wasn't for approval. It was actually for an interpretation. And this feels a little bit similar to that, like is there
something they could apply for? Um, I see you starting to answer, Jerry. I >> Yeah, I'm I actually had the same thought after um Mr. Danto uh raised that question. Is there something short of kind of a full-blown application that
we could do? I mean, it's obviously the the idea of going to the zoning board for interpretation, that's an entirely different category. Right. >> Want to at least >> talk to uh to Justin, to Nathan, and to the rest of the of the the staff to see
whether we think there is we that we can make an application. It would be a subdivision application but kind of in two stages >> where if the board decided that it passed the uh race judicata test then we
asked for for the full-blown you know all the engineered material and go from there but we could talk about that now um Justin and and Nathan if you want although maybe it's best just if we talk among ourselves. >> Yeah. Yeah. My initial thought is that
we don't have a mechanism to do that. Um the closest thing that I could see as a kind of similar thing is uh uh you know like when the zoning board here's a bifurcated application of a use variance you know can we get this use? Yes. All
right. Now we're going to bring the site plan in. Um I don't believe there's that same mechanism for this. Um >> no no there isn't. I mean, if we did, we'd have to create it. >> Yes. >> Well, I know that we have, or at least
we used to have preliminary and final site plans, which usually came together, but could come separately. I don't know if there's such a thing as a preliminary and final subdivision that >> No, this would just uh be filed as a
minor subdivision because of the number of lots created. um you know and I'm trying to like think it through and and we could discuss cuz I don't want to throw cold water on this if there is a way forward. It sounds like a good idea and um it's honestly this concept review
I think is the closest thing we have to that and I hope the applicant got at least enough of the thought or to put a different way if this was 5 minutes long and you all said we're not doing any of this I I think they would have heard that. Um obviously they didn't
necessarily hear it the other way either of please come to us with you know uh slide eight and you know you'll be able you know basically the straw pole thing. Um they didn't hear that either. So, um,
we can look into it, but again, just thinking off the top of my head, it almost seems like any mechanism that we might be able to do could almost be more more time, effort, and money than it's worth to get to the final form uh, than
just a traditional minor subdivision application. So, um, like I said, we will discuss this amongst ourselves um, and we'll see if we can we can think of anything. We don't come across this issue too often in Princeton. Um I'll certainly uh I know Mr. Bridger's been
in attendance. Um he has the institutional knowledge at this point. Um so we will pick his brain too to see if he could think of anything. >> If I could just add and I'm happy to circle back and I think that is the right way to do this um offline and I really appreciate the thinking. What it does sound like while there's not that
mechanism for bifurcation um potentially some conditional waiver submission waiverss might allow that initial subdivision question to get to the board um and then the waiverss be cured essentially prior to a second hearing. So, we might be able to look at something like that where the the staff
or board could consider submission waiverss so that you have only enough that's necessary to make that initial decision and then condition continuing the application on the formal um um other deliverables that would normally be associated with the subdivision. Um but um again, I mean just appreciate the
thinking on this. Um, again, that's something we don't see in other towns and I'll um very much appreciate um assisting if I can um offline with something like that because it it certainly would help solve this problem. >> Fair enough. Yeah, we're very happy to
think here um to the point that we often overthink. Well, uh >> I I think that's a great language to >> to move to ajourn. >> Yes, I said I hope that gives you somewhat of a a way forward um in
thinking about this and uh we'll all be uh thinking about this long and hard. So, uh with no further ado, David, you already made your your motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Thank you, Alvin. All those in favor? All right.
>> Bye. >> All right. Thank you all very much. Have a good night. >> Good night. >> Night. >> Thank you.