Okay, you're on. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on December 10th, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open
Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the Sunshine Notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board of the Princeton Municipal Complex
and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet, Town topics, the Times, Tranonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on December 5th, 2025, and has been posted to the municipal
website at www.princeton.nj.gov/meings. Pursuant to Executive Order 107, due to the state of emergency in New Jersey regarding COVID 19, notice that during the declared state of emergency, all regular and special meetings of the Princeton Zoning Board
of Adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom, was transmitted to the Princeton packet, Town topics, and the Times, and was filed with the clerk of the Princeton clerk of the Princeton municipality on
24th day of April 2020. Such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the Princeton Municipal Complex and on the Princeton website and are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet
town topics the Times Trantonian Comcast Media and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton. Notices have also been placed on the windowed doors of the municipal complex. Claudia, would you take the role?
>> Miss Chen >> here. >> Miss Coulson >> here. >> Mr. Floyd >> here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here. >> Mr. Tannen.
Mr. Stein. Miss Donna. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dokin. >> Here. >> Mr. Cohen. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> We have uh three administrative matters to resolve tonight. I think if we combine these, we can vote a straight yes or no without calling ro the res res. >> Stephen, we do need to to call roll. But what I'm going to say is maybe we can
just do a motion and second for each of them and then collectively just do one roll call vote. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> So we have the annual meeting calendar and I bring to your attention on that calendar the fact that we have two dates
in January and two dates in February scheduled. Just so uh you're aware of those two dates. We have a lot of um cases on our agenda. So we have the annual meeting calendar, the notice of special meetings that we
have to post annually and the fixed charges for the meeting notices of the zoning board of adjustment. If I could have a uh blanking on the word >> motion
>> a motion to pass >> and a second >> and a second. >> Yep. >> I move. Thank you. >> Who was that? >> David. >> David. >> Second. >> Bernice.
>> Bernice. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Can I take the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Dawkins, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Strive. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Moving to the resolutions. The first resolution, I think the only resolution is 66 Dempsey Avenue, block 5804, lot 57
R 6-T zone. Uh, you should have that in your packet. Is are there any questions, comments, or would somebody like to make a motion to pass? >> I make the motion,
>> David. Thank you. Second. Anyone want a second? >> A second. I'm sorry. When I said second, I assume you assumed I was seconding it. Um, >> oh, thank you. Claudia, you want to take the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes.
>> Mr. Dokin, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Schwer. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have four resolutions u tonight. The first one, 164 Prospect
Avenue, block 55.0 01 lot 16 R-2 in the B zone. Um Rich, are you representing them tonight? You're on mute and we can't see you.
>> There you still mute. >> Wish I was better at this. There you go. >> Good evening. Thank you for your time. >> Um, you're asking for an extension. >> We are asking for an extension to the
January 2026 calendar, please. >> Derek Claudia, is there any problem with that? >> No, the date will be uh the 28th 128 26. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. We'll see you on the 28th of January next year. Very good. Everyone be safe. >> Thank you. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Um, the second application is 15 Hillale Road, block 7207,
lot 4 in the R six-t zone. Who is representing this? Dan, uh, I can't see you and you're muted. Eugene, the same. >> Sorry about that. Um, I'm too getting
used to this. It's been a while meetings. >> All right. Before you start, um, Karen, are we in order? >> Yes. This application was carried to uh tonight's date and it's my understanding
the applicant has some additional uh information. They'd like to present to you a question had been raised with respect to uh storm water management and uh they're back tonight to further address that.
>> Okay. >> I think uh there's one more person that needs to be pulled over. Is that Yuan Lee? >> Yes. I believe so. Yeah, he should be here. I see him. He texted me he's here.
>> Yeah, I see him in the attendees. So, >> all right, Claudia will pull him over. >> There we go. >> Anyone else? >> No, that's it. just um the applicant and I >> Mr. Song, is Mr. Lee going to testify
because we can't see him and he's muted. >> Yes, he will be um testify. >> Mr. Lee, we'll just swear you in because I think you'll probably testify tonight. Do you swear from your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I do.
>> And Mr. Bridger will swear you in for the evening. Do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. And I if you could swear Taylor in now too. She's going to uh >> Okay. And Miss Griven, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful.
>> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Taylor, would you like to present the case? >> Uh actually, I'm going to do this one. She's going to do the two uh new cases. Um this application, I don't know if if the applicant wants
to explain. Um they did submit a plan. Remember last hearing a couple of the neighbors were concerned about drainage from the uh placement of the garage and they talked about installing a wall on the property line and uh we just suggested that they they submit a plan
that could be reviewed by the the municipal engineer, the land use engineer and they did do that. Um and you you basically kind of have a a representation of the plan that is to be presented um in in rough form and uh they'll have to do a more formal plan but the land use engineer Jim Purcell
did review it and he did uh think it was satisfactory. Obviously it'll have to be placed on a survey and with some more details. Um but that's that's just a synopsis of where the situation is right now. I don't know if you have anything to add. Uh
the >> Mr. Do you have anything further to add because I understand that you also um met with the two neighbors? >> Uh yes I did. So uh we actually reviewed this detail plan with the town engineers
and also the two laborers. So uh they are both shows uh satisfactory to this design and I do have that design on my screen. If you will, I can I can present to you if you like. >> I think that'd be good.
>> Yeah, please do >> that. >> Okay. Okay. So, as you can see, um so basically, uh I'm going to show you this existing uh condition. So starting from here
towards the uh property line in the front there's already uh existing curve wall has been there from the uh previous uh owners and so what I propose is I'm
going to extend this concrete curve wall all the way to the back of the property line and that way it could uh divide that two properties so that it can contain the water the stone water in
this in my property in my backyard and if you look at this uh I'm going to reduce a little bit if you look at this survey so you can see basically this red line is basically presenting that new curve wall that I'm going to
install and it's going to start in the middle of the of the yard uh the fun this black line is the existing curve wall, right? So, I'm going to extend it all the way to the back. Um, and also,
uh, I took the recommendation from the township site engineer. Uh, so I'm going to install a 3 ft by 20 ft area of the landscaping burn. So, that way this burn will uh, plant those type of water
loving plants. So that um the water can also observe by the plants in the back. Um so it become a a landscapy feature. Um so that the water basically the water will contain within my FDR. Um so I and
this is the detail design of that. So basically we're going to uh put about around 15 inch pole of that concrete wall and then about half of it will be buried into the ground and then we're
going to stick every 3 ft there will be a rebar stick all the way to the the the sole the ground so that it can hold that concrete wall. Um so basically that's the engineer design and we send it to
the neighbor and neighbor seems like the idea. >> Yep. Uh that would be what I have for you for everyone. >> Mr. Song, would you like this to be um I guess you're up to exhibit A2. >> Yes. Um A2 I believe. Yeah. Because the
first one I believe was the PowerPoint presentation, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. Zoning board members, do you have any questions, comments? Okay, we will um close this section. If uh you have anything else you'd like to
say, Mr. Before we go into the uh public section, do you have a summary? >> No, I do not have anything. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We'll open up the public. If uh there's anybody in the public who would like to speak, please hit the
raise your hand button on the bottom of the screen and we will move you over. Claudia, you see any hands? >> No. Oh, wait a minute. Alex Lavine. Mr. Lavine, if you would like to speak,
would you? We need to see your uh picture, your p your face, not just the picture. >> Is that better? >> Go. >> Yeah. Thank you very much, >> Mr. Lavine. If you're comfortable, could you give us your address, please? >> Yes. My address is 327 Walnut Lane.
>> All righty. And do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead. Well, um I um let I I think I let the board know today and I
let um um Mr. You uh Mr. Lee know that I have um no problem with the um I'm more than satisfied with the revisions of the site plan with respect to the drainage issues which um pretty much took up the
whole uh the whole time of our discussion uh last week or last month. Um and there was a lot of detail and the the site plan came back very detailed and that one works for me. Um what as far as I recall didn't come up a month
ago was this question of um the um 3-foot setback um per the request for the variance or the five foot setback per um current zoning zoning ordinance.
Um and um this um this is a will be in my backyard, you know, rising very close to the fence, a sizable structure. And um I um I mean this this
property was purchased with uh the knowledge that that there was a requirement for a 5-ft setback that current code would would not allow for a driveway along uh along the property line. Um and
um it's I I I guess I'm I'm speaking in my own interest, but also in the interest of the um the zoning ordinances that the requirement of a 5ft setback, you know, actually um be enforced. Um
and I I I think that variances should only should only be granted uh for uh very pressing reasons. And in my opinion, this is this is not law. It's his interest against my interests
is really what what what this boils down to. And I have I have the ordinances on my side and you have your ability to grant the variance. >> Um so that's that's my statement. I I won't repeat myself. I won't repeat myself anymore.
>> Just Mr. Lane, just to clarify, your concern is the variance for the garage setback. Correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Um, anyone else in the public want to speak? I see another hand.
Claudia, do you want to transfer them over? Dan. >> Yeah, I had my hand up but then had to be admitted. >> Yeah. Right. >> Here's Dan. >> Right. Here's Dan. Dan, you're muted and we can't see you. Now we can see you but we can't hear
you. >> Still muted. >> There you go. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Glow. Your third 335 walnut. Is that right? >> That is correct. >> All righty. And do you swear affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Please go ahead. Thank you for another opportunity to allow me to uh to speak to the board. Uh in the last November meeting, uh I raised concern on the rainwater runaway uh from 15 hillside uh into my property
at 335 W and also into my neighbor uh Mr. Alex Levine's house at 327 wat. Uh since then uh the owner of 15 uh hillside uh Mr. David Lee uh has already
come up with the engineering design to build and extend the container wall uh between uh um uh our properties uh along the property line. I think the uh retaining wall design has adequately
addressed my concern. So here I just want express my sincere appreciation to David for his uh effort uh to to agree to build that uh uh retaining wall. Uh secondly um regarding the uh the concern
on the three feet uh side setback uh as already uh raised by uh Alex um um I uh spoke with uh uh David uh early this evening. Um what I um uh remind him is
um uh this garage is going to be further uh into the backyard uh with another 15 uh feet at least extension from the existing drive wall uh the existing uh driveway uh that is right next to the
property line uh from my uh backyard. Um, I think the garage uh which is so far away from the front yard uh will be used as most of my neighbors do as a storage place and the garage is very
small and most likely uh Mr. Lee and his family will use the existing driveway and extension of new driveway as a parking lot for his cars. And uh even though that driveway has a zero setback
from the property from my backyard, I don't mind uh his continuation of using that as his uh uh as his parking lot. Um in that case uh I don't think personally um uh compliance with the five feet uh
side setback uh as per the zoning regulation would make a a big deal uh for his ownership. Um so so that will be my uh opinion on this. Thank you again. >> Uh just to for clarification, did you
say you don't mind if the garage is built? >> I I don't mind. No, I don't mind uh Mr. Lee and his family using the existing and extension of the uh concrete driveway with a zero setback from my
property line as his parking lot. I don't mind that even though I know previous owner had that as a violation to the zoning regulations. >> Okay. But you have no opinion about the garage. Um, I I I would appreciate the
zoning board uh can uh uh continue. >> I'm afraid you just froze here. Um, garage uh sides instead of 3D. >> Uh, would you mind repeating that? You froze on my screen at least.
>> Okay. Um, I support a five feet side setback requirement on the W structure next to the parking lot. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the public want to speak? Okay, I don't see any other hands. So,
we'll close the public portion of this. Before we go into executive session, would you like to make a statement, Mr. Lee? >> I understand that. Uh, so to me, my argument again, it's because of the uh
structure uh is close to the corner of the house. So we feel that three fts will make it more convenience to mentoring that car into the garage. Um but I totally understand the neighbor's
concern you know. Um but to my point the 3t and feet 5t might not make much difference. Um but I'm okay to open to both. It's to me it's not really a big deal. So it's up to the zoning board to
discuss about this. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. We'll close this portion and go into executive session. Zoning board members, how do you feel? Any emotions? Any
concerns? Any questions? Donna, >> I think what the applicant is saying is that the garage is something he's willing to forgo
for the sake of the application. Is is that what you're saying, sir? So what I I make my case like one B to consider that will give me more convenience to
uh allow the three ft setback versus 5T uh enforced by the zoning code. I would appreciate that consideration will give me more convenience right more safety car mentoring
but if it really down to the point where people are really concerned about it I would accept as a five feet just to make this case move forward and in the sense of everyone's time but I would probably going to push this drive uh the the car
garage probably a few feet back to the backyard just to make that driveway a little bit longer. If that's five feet, it's going to be the way to go. Donna, what I'm what I'm hearing is that the applicant is willing to eliminate
the variance for the garage setback so that he'll comply with the five foot requirement. And I see Mr. Lee nodding his head, so I'm I'm assuming that's correct. Yes, that's correct. So that we can move forward with this application. Yeah.
>> So in the current drawing we have is it a three-foot setback? >> Yes. >> So you would move the garage over towards the patio. >> Not over. It's kind of a push inward by
two feet. The garage will meet the five foot setback. That's required by the ordinance. But >> that would leave the variances for the sideyard setback for the second floor addition. And
yeah, there's a set of variances for that. And the variance for the driveway setback required 5T proposed is zero to 3.5 ft.
>> It's hard to describe it because it's on an angle from a zero setback to what the garage was going to be 3 feet. So it'll probably be zero to 5T now. Something like that. >> Okay. >> Thanks. So, but the garage would become
narrower or the whole garage would move over two feet. No, >> the garage is going to slide over two feet to the interior of the lot so it meets that 5ft sideyard setback. And you may may extend the driveway a bit to make maneuverability into the garage a little less dramatic.
>> Got it. >> Thank you, T. >> You're welcome, sir. But the extension does of the driveway doesn't require a variance. Is that correct? >> That is correct, Mr. Hopkin. >> Thank you.
>> Michael, you look like you were going to say something. >> Absolutely not. >> Okay. Do any other comments? Anyone want to make a motion? >> One question though, whoever makes the
motion, this is being presented as both a C1 hardship variance or a C2, I believe. Yeah, it requested either or both. So, whoever makes the motion, I'd appreciate if we would just
identify it. whether you feel this is a hardship situation, if so, why? Or if it's a C2, then what what purposes do you think that the
application is is supporting? So, I'll I'll move to approve it. Um I I guess because it is uh it's existing conditions are um less than the required setbacks it would be a
a hardship and and uh lot areas under as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second that. >> Eve, thank you. Any more discussion? Any comments?
>> Um, I would agree with the motion except for the garage. Um, I think that should meet the five foot setback. >> Oh, right. Yeah, that's what he Yeah, he he already
>> Yeah, he agreed to that. >> Okay. Okay. So that so that's included in in the motion. >> So So we'll make just clear um the motion then would include variances for the sideyard setback second floor
addition. We have proposed 8.87 87 ft left side, 12.79 ft right side, and then also 13.79
ft. And no variance for the garage and driveway setback uh would be proposed. It would kind of vary between zero to five foot setback.
Okay, Donna, anything else? >> Do we um do do we does he need to work out with um with Derek or someone from the zoning department?
He talked about extending the driveway to >> Yeah, I can speak to that. Um so when when a a variance gets approved, it's reviewed by the engineer and myself. So um we'll see if the driveway extension
um creates any new impervious coverage. If it does, he'll have to address that. Um and then we'll just make sure all the conditions in the resolution are uh met uh before it's signed off on. But that's a good question. >> Okay. Yeah, I can tell it. I now it's
going to be very minor extension because I'm I'm not intended to push the the be the garage all the way to the back. Um but just probably about another three or four feet further back just to make the minimation a little bit easier. That's
all. Yep. Keep it minimum basically. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Claudia, you want to take the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd,
>> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Dawan, >> yes. >> West driver. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Good luck with your project.
>> Thank you everyone. Have a good holidays ahead. Thank you >> again everybody. >> Thank you. >> Okay. It's 8:05. We'll go to the next resolution which is or application which
is 6 Evelyn Place block 34.01 lot 7 in the R3- B zone the Jug Town Historic District. Uh,
>> I'll note that the uh >> noticing is not the noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight to hear it. >> Okay. Um, do you want to swear people in before we start this, Karen?
>> Well, uh, I'm not sure who we're swearing in, so I guess we'll >> find out from Mr. Kennedy, their attorney. Oh, I'm sorry. We have Elizabeth. Take that back. Um, Elizabeth, if you could unmute yourself,
>> Elizabeth, are you there? Okay. Well, let's do this. Let's um why don't we why don't we begin with Derek or I'm sorry uh Taylor's going to present I think >> and then we'll see if uh >> we can get Elizabeth on the screen.
>> All right. So we are in order. Um Karen, will you present the case please? >> Do I need to be sworn? >> That's okay. >> You we swore you in at the beginning Taylor. You're >> Taylor, please. So, the subject property
lot is 6 Evelyn Place. Again, that's block 34.01, lot 7. It's in the R3B zone. Um, and it is in the Jugtown Historic District. There was a HPC memo released December 5th, 2025. Um,
hopefully Elizabeth will be able to speak to that. Um an overview of the project is the applicant constructed a single family dwelling within the mean prevailing front yard setback on the lot. The required mean prevailing front yard setback was calculated and selected
for the property at 33 ft and the constructed foundation of the single family dwelling is located at 31 ft from the front property line. Um, the subject lot complies with the applicable bulk requirements. The applicant received
original zoning and HPC approval in Mar on March 18th of 2024. Um, again, the applicant constructed a single family home within the mean prevailing front setback determined for the subject property. Per code section
B10A 376.1, the mean prevailing front yard setback is determined by calculating the mean front yard setback of the principal dwellings within 500 ft in each direction on the same side of the street within that same zoning district. In this case, and per the code
section, if the lot if the subject lot has three or fewer dwellings on the same side of the street, the property owner shall have the option to match either front yard setback of those three or fewer dwellings. The mean front yard or
the mean prevailing front yard setback for the subject property was calculated with 2, four, and eight Evelyn Place being the only lots on the same side of the street in the same zone. There were uh the property owners had to choose between the following prevailing
front yard setbacks being 37 ft, 34 ft and 33 ft. During the construction and after the first approval, the dwelling was constructed both by error and by misinterpreting section E. Um the foundation was constructed within the mean front yard setback chosen by the
property owner. The required which was selected was 33 and the existing is 31. The only change to this application is that the garage in the I don't think this was supposed to be in this one. Yeah, >> it is. >> It is.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> The only change in the application is that the garage in the backyard has been shifted away from the side property line further into the subject property. >> If I if I may. Um, >> hi. I'm in a Zoom meeting.
>> Elizabeth might be able to speak to that. Ryan Kenny for the applicant, but um um we would have to go back to HPC to make that change. So, that's actually not part of the application. The uh the garage was previously approved by HPC uh where it's shown on on the side. Um and uh we would go back to HBC if that were
to be changed. So, we're we're actually not proposing a a change to the garage this evening. So, apologies for that. >> Okay. It was just not I think it was on the drawings that were submitted. So, uh we'll just be guided by your testimony. >> Okay.
>> Um and if anybody has any questions or concerns, be happy to try to answer. >> Uh can you give us a summary of what you said? What is the real question here that we're considering? Um,
I mean, a misinterpretation of the zoning code for the mean prevailing front yard setback is >> what we're here for. >> Okay. It was the which they chose one which was the 33, right?
>> Yeah, they chose the 33, but it was constructed at 31. >> And part of that closer >> Yeah. is that there's a twoft variance. Like if you have a mean prevailing setback and it's let's say 37, you could go down
to 35 feet, but that's only when there's a mean when there's just three houses on a lot, excuse me, in a a range. You have to choose one. And they chose 33. And they thought that they could slide it forward within that twoft, you
know, deviation that's permitted in the calculation of the mean. But that does not apply when you only have three houses within the range of the front yard setbacks to be chosen from. So, >> okay. Thank you. Any other questions for uh Taylor?
>> Question. When they push the house forward, did the whole house shift so that the backyard is now a larger setback than expected by two feet?
>> Yes. Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Kennedy, do you want to give us a presentation? >> Sure. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh members of the board, uh and uh uh Miss Griman, and and Mr. Bridger, thank you so much. Um if Elizabeth comes back, I think she'll hopefully corroborate what
I'm about to say, but I want to thank you all for your time, uh this evening. Um, as Miss Griven said, this is a case where uh the applicant um essentially mistakenly and for for two reasons. I think as Mr. Richard noted at the end um
built the house not fully 2 feet closer but we'll we'll show you an almost dimminimous and I don't mean from the um footage but only a very small portion of a very uniquely designed home on a very unique lot which is curved on a very
unique street where there are only three houses to compare it to one of which is actually perpendicular at the end of the street u and ultimately the applicant realized the mistake after construction had started um went to the town uh discussed what the options would should
be. Uh kind of stopped um completing the front of the of the home uh before we could go to HPC and here to this board to ask for the variance in lie of drastically changing either the design of the home or the uh physical frontage
of it and unfortunately the foundations uh and and framing. Um uh we went to HPC uh last month. Um this is a term that I don't usually hear from them, but ultimately they had no objections uh to the design or the change or the the
requirement here. Interestingly, and you'll hear when we talk to our architect to get some testimony in a minute, uh ultimately the design and location of what HBC originally saw was at this exact location. It was I think later understood that that plus or minus
2 ft doesn't count um when one does the prevailing setback under this less than four home on the street method. Uh ultimately based on that mistake the house was mislocated built at 31. But again I want to stress we'll show you what 31 means in this and
is a little corner of one small piece of the house. it is not the entire frontage of a of an otherwise square home that addresses the street. Um uh we will have our architect um this evening, Jeff Flecher, to go through uh the information, but ultimately I hope
you'll agree with us um and have the same lack of concern that HPC had uh that this is really a dimminimous change that actually uh is a better design uh for for the street. Um I'll I'll pause there, Mr. Chairman. I
know Miss Kim is back and I I I'm happy to yield the floor to to her. >> Yeah. Board members, would you like to hear from Miss Kim now so that she can put this let you hear the HPC's position? Uh Elizabeth, if you could unmute. >> Did that work?
>> It did. Okay. Thank you. But we need to swear you in. Do you swear from your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, so just to give a some and I apologize. I was actually driving and my um my car took over my phone so I
couldn't get to the camera and mute. Um, so as Mr. Kendi was saying so this application uh originally when it came in with the design in the Jugtown historic district um it was only a HPC application because it did not have any
variances and it was a residence um and uh what what we understood is when they built the house um they had built it within two foot of the uh front yard setback. So that would be their
violation. It when HBC reviewed it, they looked at the original plans. Obviously, the building architecture and everything has um remained as was approved. Um it is 2 feet closer. I wouldn't necessarily say as Mr. Kennedy said that it's a
better location, but they had no objection because they felt that it did not deter from the historic neighborhood, the streetscape, or the Jud Jugtown historic district. So they had no objection. The reason they said that instead of supporting is because
they obviously don't support anything where there is a violation or error in in a design that was approved um different than what was constructed. >> Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. >> You're welcome. >> Mr. Kennedy, you want to go on with your
presentation? >> Absolutely. Um first we'll have um our architect uh Jeff Flecher if I could have him sworn in and I'll introduce him to the board. Uh, Mr. Fleer, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Jeeoff, I know you've appeared with this board many times. If you could very briefly um give the uh benefit of your uh credential so I can have you accepted as an expert here tonight. >> Sure. I have a bachelor's in architecture from New Jersey Institute Technology. I've been licensed in New Jersey,
Delaware, and Pennsylvania since 1995. >> Thank you. Uh we have seen you many times before. We don't need to go >> too far with that. Thank you, Jeeoff. Go ahead. >> Um if I could uh share my screen, um we have one uh exhibit um of of slides we'd
like to have marked as our our one exhibit this evening. >> Sure. >> Hopefully that was successful. Uh Jeff going to slide two. um in in blue uh that is six Evelyn place that we'll
be talking here tonight. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Let me uh now going to slide three. Um the maybe you could just orient this is a revised uh map here. Um but um let's talk for a
second about h how we're used to um uh describing or calculating prevailing setbacks and and ultimately um what you what you're used to with the plus or minus um however but what happened here right so um maybe to start at the at at
27 going up Evelyn we just talk through um I think we've marked the setbacks of the three homes that count um towards the calculating the prevailing. Is that uh what we have here? >> That's correct. Yes. >> So I guess uh starting on the corner uh
we've got the orange line that shows where their setback is that was calculated by the municipality forest uh next door uh where that was calculated. And then at the end, interestingly, there is a duplex and one of half of the duplex counts as being on our side of the street. And the front of that
actually is the um third prevailing setback. That's correct. Yes. >> And then for our lot that we'll be talking about 67 in place, we've actually shaded in what it means to be in this case 33 feet from uh the lot
line which is actually very interestingly a curved and undulating kind of rivet. Is that right? >> Yes. Due to the circle at the end of the street. Yep. So now um moving uh to slide four, we've
overlaid the design of the home and we'll zoom in a lot more as we go a little bit further. But so the home you designed actually was specifically um I guess put together to follow that curve is
>> it was yes the form in the front follows that curve. Yes. So when we talk about violating the front setback, we're not talking about the entirety of the front of the house, uh so much as a a corner of part of it. Is that is that right? >> That's right.
>> So uh zooming in um again here on slide five. So here we have uh I guess in gray at the bottom that is the footprint of the the home. >> Yes. And then green uh is that front yard area that um
unfortunately when the home was ultimately cited cuts through a very small portion of a part of that front of the building. >> Yes. That's the 33 foot setback. Yes. >> Now um I noticed that where the other part of the front of the house is is actually set behind that 33 ft. So
actually could this part of the home could have been built closer to the street? Yes, you could have filled in that triangle there. >> Yeah, but so moving next uh to slide six. I guess
on the on the the top left and the right, those are renderings that you did of the of the home as proposed. >> Yes. And and I guess highlighted in yellow is the more or less that piece of the corner that unfortunately is into
that um piece of the front yard setback if the plus or minus 2 ft doesn't count, which we now understand it does not. >> Right. That's correct. >> Moving to slide seven here. Again, we've got um a photo
on the right. Now, that's a kind of current, but ultimately that's the state of the building once the um the applicant realized what had happened and um came to the town to ask for the variance. Um but that is essentially what what has been built. Uh maybe you
could just briefly say if we were to alter the front, what what that might mean, what what you'd have to do to to do that. >> Well, from from the foundation up, you'd have to cut that corner um as well as the roof. Um
so >> and the type of foundation that this is um maybe you could describe that a little bit um how this was done and >> yeah this has to do that >> has um it's a pre-fabricated foundation that's that's brought in and placed on
site. Um so it's it would have to be pulled out and remanufactured in a shorter distance. And you know, looking on the left where the the kind of again the map that shows what is into that front yard. It it looks like that
front porch is in the front yard, but that's there because front porches are are meant to be and permitted to to extend into the front yard setback. >> Yes, they are. >> So, I guess you may put another way, the way you designed the house was to to follow that line and actually make it uh
appear or have that porch uh more prominent. Um so uh but but ultimately um so that that is permitted but that sliver of that front part of that uh first floor first second floor room is is not >> right. The house itself is not allowed.
>> We're going to see this more on another slide but there's on on uh from looking at the house headon there's a spot on the left and from the map on the left of the screen there's this inset. Um, ultimately, and you designed this as well, there is a a kind of a cutout that
that ultimately lines up with uh some of the trees in the neighborhood. It was helpful in in protecting um and sighting the home to avoid um as best as possible interfering with the the roots and drip line of that tree. >> That's right. Yes. That and we actually
um push the foundation in another two feet to allow for the root system for the tree. So ultimately, if we were to shift the house back, and it wouldn't have to necessarily be a full two feet because that 31 ft is a diagonal um a
little bit towards the back of the the lot or to the side to avoid that dimminimous I think. Um incursion, it would have likely been closer to that tree as well. >> Oh, definitely. Yes. Yes.
>> Guess moving to slide eight here. I guess you can see a little bit more of those trees that were um uh uh that were um kind of designed around in inciting the home. Um maybe speak a little bit. I know a lot of work went into uh um uh
protecting those roots and and you know carving around them. I I heard uh you know this is a term I I hear often but I never really seen one in in in action but you know essentially air spades to make sure that the roots were protected and you know to as as opposed to trenching or or cutting them and and things of that nature.
>> Yes, they they did take great care and and um I know they worked even with the neighbor to make sure that they saved as much of the root system as possible. >> Um here's a another view. um kind of
towards the that corner. But again, you can see of what's built um that again um that two feet that we're talking about is that highlighted corner of the uh of the frontage of that portion of the
house. Is that is that right? >> That's right. >> All right. Um well uh I don't know if anyone has any other questions for the uh architect other than a brief summary. Uh that is our intended uh um direct testimony. I'd
like to be able to summarize briefly um before we uh finish up. But I'm happy to to yield to any questions that are >> Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Any questions by board members? I have a question. Exactly how how big is that corner?
Is that a foot? >> Well, the the the two legs would be about two feet. Yes. Each. The two legs of the triangle. >> Is if that's what you're referring to. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Thank you. Any other questions? >> Steve, I have a question. >> Sure, Donna. >> Um, the trees you're talking about, gentlemen, these trees are on your property or on the neighbor's property? They're on this property but very close to the property line.
>> Okay. >> Other questions before we go into public uh session. Mr. Kennedy would would you like to >> just ve very briefly just so I got it partially uh at least out there of the two variance types I think a C2 is more
appropriate here um just going through the the purposes of the zoning we think ACE I J and M particularly uh J uh which is to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts open space and energy resources um ultimately the
requirement to um rebuild this in a way that almost has no uh visible uh difference or discernable change ultimately because such a small portion of a very unique um setback uh is is is
implicated because of the curvature of this um road and the uh design of the home that puts the the you know a beautiful front porch uh in in in the place that the town would like to see it
um almost hides the uh incursion um from view uh we believe it's dimminimous. Uh we don't think that there's really any negative um impact uh to either the zone plan either from the neighbor perspective and there's some some
positivity positive um uh of citing it in this particular location which helped to avoid uh the tree um that was there on the side through kind of a unique cutout arrangement that was keyed in to where uh the tree was. Um, ultim we also
don't believe there's any negative on the general welfare or zone plan. And since with there's no negatives, hopefully you can determine that that that means that there's um there's no um that the benefits um definitely outweigh that that lack of detriment. So, uh hopefully
you agree. Unfortunately, this is a develop an applicant that um ultimately found the found the mistake one that um you know in and even uh as a as a practitioner who looks at these quite often uh the the lack of the plus or
minus in this of two feet in this scenario is um one that I'm much more aware of now than I would have been at the beginning of this. I I I assure you um uh that you know it's a unique street where the homes that are matching um frankly we are set behind one of them
now because um we again that 333 ft is at a diagonal from the curved street line and uh the neighboring house we could have actually been in front of by building the house forward a little bit with a perhaps a different design or or
in filling. So the the goal of um of prevailing setbacks is to create uniformity and and a um appropriate front um visual um scene uh for a
street. Uh we agree with HPC that there was no detriment um to the to the street um or um particularly the historic district um in this ultimate location or design um and you know but for that plus
or minus two foot mistake it would comply and the part that doesn't comply is um you know there's no definition of dimminimus but it is a quite small portion. This is not a case where the entire traditional front of a home is in the setback. It is a part where um uh
and in fact before we redid our slides, we had a difficult time kind of showing HPC which part of it even didn't comply when we were there. So again, hopefully uh you agree um that this minor incursion um uh is better than the
alternative of um uh re-impacting the trees in the and the neighborhood by rebuilding uh that front in a different way, which itself would require another trip back to HBC, we believe, for a revised design if one could be put together. So thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Um, we'll now open to the public. If there's somebody in the public who would like to speak, please hit the raise hand button on the bottom of your screen and we will transfer you over to the meeting.
I don't see any hands. Claudia, do you see anything? >> No, no hands. >> Mr. Chairman, >> Elizabeth, I apologize. I don't know where my raise hand button is on my phone, but uh if I had an opportunity
just to answer. Someone asked a question about the driveway and the garage on the the site survey plan which I could uh explain. Um I think that if you look on the memo from the HBC chair, there were two recommendations which one which
asked that the as the asbuilt survey be performed which which the proposed garage is eliminated because the way the garage is sewn on that plan is not what was approved. Um my understanding from the contractor is that they were
interested in changing the design. It was a twocar garage and I believe it's shown as a onecar and they would like to also pull it back a little bit so it doesn't face it's further behind the building. It gives the the um vehicle an
opportunity to drive out forward instead of having to back up like 600 ft which was one of their original HBC's original comments. Um but that was not that had not come before HBC and uh for us to review it. they had said that they would
eliminate that from their application and come back separately. So just for clarification on what you see in your submission. >> Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. Uh we will close the public session now. I I assume Mr. Kennedy, you don't need to uh give
us another summary. >> No, you don't need to hear that more than once. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We'll close the session and go into executive session. Board members, any comments, questions, uh, motions, seconds?
I I do have one quick question. How did you discover it? I Jeff, that I I believe honestly um it was I believe just the fieldwork in in working on those kind of asbuilts that realized it. Um, Jeeoff, if that light up with your your take? Um, I believe it
was the contractor himself who was standing in the backyard and thought, "This looks a little bigger than what I thought it was going to be." And and then he asked for the the asbuilt survey and that's that's how we discovered it. >> Thank you. Other questions, board
members? So if if we approve this then the proposed garage we would make clear is not being approved. >> I'll just I'll I'll reiterate what Miss Kim said and just what we'll stipulate
to absolutely that the the the previously approved uh garage which is frontf facing uh is not the subject of this application. It's the the the builder is thinking about changing it. Uh if that were to happen, we would go back to HBC to to seek the change. We're not seeking that here this evening. >> And then what about the driveway? The
driveway stands the way it's shown on your plan. >> That is that is correct. And that that has not changed from what was approved by HBC. >> And Elizabeth, you had noted also
HPC's recommendations or perhaps you didn't, but it's in the memo. uh conditions of the HPC's June 17, 2024 resolution are have they been met now? Are they still relevant or >> uh they have all been satisfied? Yes,
there were some um there was a HPC subcommittee that did some um minor recommendation changes to the architecture u more of the exterior uh alignment of some type of um trim which was already approved and I believe that
the attorney only wanted to include that for the zoning board adjustments reference just to say that that you know it was approved >> right so so HBC this would need to be a condition then of the zoning board approval if if the board um were so
willing. It's not necessary now since they've been complied with. >> Right. I think it's just number one >> of of the memo, which is to have it as built with the garage removed as they show it there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions, board members?
motion, you know, I would move to approve this, but you know, whatever HPC approved, but not the garage. Um, and that little triangle,
I mean, to me it seems more like a C1, but what do other people think? Well, how Well, I guess Donna, the question is, what is it about the property that you find prevented them
from complying? I think even the applicant acknowledges that it was, you know, misreading of an ordinance and it's dimminimous, etc. But I don't think they're arguing that because of the configuration they couldn't do it, so
they >> I just thought I just thought it was because of the curve. You know, the curve just made it difficult and confusing. Um, but if you know I could go with the C2 if the board feels that
that's more appropriate. >> Sounds like Karen feels it. >> Well, I do, but >> anybody else have an opinion about it. >> Let Let's go with what Karen feels, you know. >> All right. So, you've made it you've made the motion, Tana. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> In a convoluted way. Yes. >> Is there a second? Uh, I see a hand. Beneer. Do you want to unmute or Eve? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Any other questions before we take a vote?
Comments? All right, Claudia, do you want to take the role? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes.
>> Mr. Topkin, >> you're muted. David, >> yes. Vice Chair Shrivever. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy. >> Mr. uh Shriber, could I just say something quickly here? Sorry to
interrupt you. Um >> I don't know if anyone knows uh I'm sure a lot of people know, but Elizabeth is uh retiring at the end of this month. And I would just like to uh extend my gratitude uh for all the the work you've done the last 12 10 years you've been
the historic preservation officer. It's been a real pleasure to work with you and we we will miss you. I'm speaking for myself but I think the board feels the same way and uh I just want that to go out there. You've done a great job and you will be missed. >> Well, thank you so much and I have to
say I've always enjoyed coming to the zoning board of adjustment. It's always been interesting. Um, we've always had interesting projects and we seem to pretty much be in line with most of the projects that we reviewed. And I do want to extend an invitation to you to come
to HBC's annual holiday party on Monday the 15th. Um, we're going to have a meeting that starts at 5:00, but the celebration will start at 6:00. It's going to be in the community room in the in the uh Witherspoon Municipal Building. So, please come. We'd love for you to come and at least meet the other
HPC members and the the new uh stroke preservation officer is going to be there as well. So, it's a great opportunity to meet her as well. And me too. >> Elizabeth, will you continue on the board or are you >> No, >> you're leaving all together. Well, we do
thank you immensely and and you have been a big part of our meetings for a long time. So, thank you for your help and support. >> Of course. Thank you. See you on Monday. >> I think we'll take a five minute break.
It's now 8:40. We'll resume at 8:45. >> Great. Miss and Derek. America. >> Okay. Are we still recording? I think we are. >> Yes, we are. >> All right. We will we will resume with the application for 416
North Harrison Street, block 7202, lot 7 uh in the R-6T zone. Karen, are we in order? >> Yes, the noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight.
>> Thank you. Taylor, would you like to present the case, please? >> Yes, sir. Um, so the subject property lot is 416 North Harrison Street. It's block 7202, lot 7. It's an R6T zone.
Um, the applicant is, Apologies if I mispronounced your name, Reandas Grublas, Grublioscus and Monica Grublius. Um the applicants are requesting a C1
and a C2 variance um to permit the construction of a single family dwelling in exception to the required lot width and lot frontage. Um the subject property lot is
non-complying with respect to the required lot frontage which the requirement is 85 ft and the existing is 75 ft. The subject property lot does not meet the lot width. The required lot
width is 85 ft and the existing is 75. The applicant is proposing to construct a new twostory single family home with a full basement. The home features four bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, a dining room, and four and a half baths.
A detached twocar garage is proposed behind the home. The applicant should advise if they have contacted the adjacent property owners to determine if they would sell any property to lessen or eliminate the variance or if the alternative purchase
of the or in the alternative purchase the subject lot. The applicant has requested consideration under the C1 and the C2 criteria. And if anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. >> Any questions for Taylor? Thank you,
Taylor. >> No problem. >> Uh, I was going to read their names, but I think I would have had more trouble than you did. So, um, are
I see Monica's picture, but no sound. And you don't look like Monica. >> Oh, yes. Hello, everyone. I'm using my wife's computer >> and your name is >> Rondas Grublaus.
>> Sir, um we need to swear you in. Do you swear or from your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. And sir, you're going to represent yourself then in the application tonight. Is that correct? >> Uh I'm hoping on our architect Rick
Perez. >> Okay. Claudia, do you see him um in attendees? >> Yes. One second. >> Okay. >> What about your contractor? Do you want him over too or no?
>> Yeah, of course. We can have him also. >> Well, he's declining to become a panelist. So, if >> No, no, I'm not. No, I'm not. Okay. >> Not you, the contractor, sir. >> Okay, understood. That's fine. Okay. Um,
>> here we go. We see somebody. >> Yep. I'm Ricardo Perez. I'm the architect for Mr. >> I understand. Mr. Perez, we're looking to see now if >> I don't know if your builder. >> Yeah, I'm here. I'm here.
>> Yeah, we can't see you. I don't think I have the video. Okay. I'll quickly join on the other call. >> All right. Well, for the for the time being, we will swear you in. Mr. Perez, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful?
>> Yes. >> And sir, are you a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey? >> I am. I'm a registered architect state of New Jersey. All >> righty. And you are the architect of record for this project? >> Correct.
>> All right. Thank you. Um, >> is your name Ramandis? >> Yes. >> So, if I call you Ramandis, I'm basically correct. >> Perfect. Yes. >> Thank you. Uh, would you're welcome to go ahead and present your case.
>> I'm I'm going to be uh doing the present presentation for Mr. Ramandas if that's okay. >> No, that's fine. >> So, I'm going to share my screen right now. Okay. Okay. Okay, I'm going to I'll start with just a general location of the property. Uh let's see if you can see the screen
in here. This is the the property. >> Okay. Is my screen showing? >> Yes, >> it is. Mr. Perez, do you know how many slides you'll have? Because we could collectively make them um an exhibit for you. Exhibit A1. >> Yeah, I'm going to have pro I'm going to
have um at least four. >> Four. Okay, very good. Thank you. >> Okay. And this is just to show general location of the property in question, which is here with the with the red dot. This is 416 North uh Harrison Street. Uh you can see the yellow properties uh at
the bottom of the sheet here are similar size lots about about 75 ft. They're all undersized. The lots to a couple of a few of the lots to the north of us are slightly larger than 85 feet. Um but as you can see from the yellow on the map, most of the lots are 75 feet or smaller.
even these get smaller at this end. So, we're surrounded by a lot of small lots in this area. So, just to give you a little context of the overall um location of this property. Uh the ne then I want to my next exhibit here. This is uh Crest Engineering's drawing that was submitted for approval. It is
dated 425. And I'll start with their existing drawing just to give you a little understanding of the existing site. Uh this is the existing property in question. Um, what we're proposing to do is take out the carport and the onecar garage and add an addition on this end. And then
>> we don't have a new slide. >> Oh, you don't see it? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh, >> let me stop that. I want to start the new one. I'm sorry. I don't have them in order. >> That's all right. >> Okay. Is this one being shared now? No.
Not yet. Here we go. Okay. Maybe you have the slide now. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Right. So, this this is the existing site plan as submitted from Crest Engineering just to show the existing house, the existing footprint. So, we're not changing the footprint with the exception of knocking the garage down.
The onecar garage, the vestibial is coming out and there's going to be a new addition in this corner. And this is the existing property. We're we're maintaining the front yard line, so there's not going to be any change to that for the for the new house. Here's a proposed house. Here's here's here's an
addition. This is the existing footprint, although we're rebuilding it. Uh but this is the addition additional footprint. This is within the setback. There's no variances required there. And this is the overall uh site plan. So, we're here today for one simple thing. We have a non-conforming 75 ft lot where
85 ft's required. So, our frontage and our and our required widths are both short. There are no other variances with the exception of the existing condition of this part of the building which is um encroaching on the sideyard. Um that's an existing part of the building that's being maintained. The rest of the construction will be new and we're here
today because of the fact that it's a non-conforming lot. Um uh the building itself and I'm going to switch drawings here to my third exhibit. Got it. >> Okay. Okay. So, here's basically here's
our demolition drawing. So, you can see what we're taking away from the house. And the reason we decided to take away most of the basement is because it's structurally unsound at the moment. It's leaking water. This home was built in 1950. The ground on the outside was not wellmaintained. So, there's a lot of uh
damage to the existing foundation. Uh we're attempting to repair it, but it got it was not cost- effective to repair it. So, we're hoping to replace it. And in replacing it, we're going to go a little bit deeper because the current basement height is only about six feet uh six six foot too high, which is a very shallow basement. Doesn't meet the
occupancy requirements for today's modern homes. Um so, the the new homes, just to show you what it's going to look like, the floor plan's a modest home. It's about 2500 square feet. You can see the front elevation facing Harrison here. It's in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. This is the existing
portion of the building here. Um we're hoping to replace the foundation under it because it's also in bad shape. Um but that's the existing portion. So u in short um this is basically um a lot that's too narrow for the existing conditions. Had we not been
building a new home, you know, we would not be before this board. So um there are no other variances required for this property uh that we're aware of at this moment. The variance will not harm the public good or zoning plan in any way whatsoever and is the only necessary
relief of this project. It is also part of the um Princeton um um master plan um to reduce the cost of development and increase investment by streamlining review, permitting and approval procedures. Exactly what we're doing here tonight. So, this would be in
keeping with the with the um with with the master plan as well with items number um M and possibly G of the municipal utilities authorities. And uh G is to basically provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of and I'll short list
residential, commercial, industrial uses and open spaces both public and private and as well as M to encourage um coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more effective efficient use
of land. So, um, hopefully this is, uh, your easiest application of the evening and, um, hopefully and, um, let's see if I have anything else to say here. Um, I have there's a lot I have a lot more drawings and exhibits, but I think this is a pretty simple application and I'll take any questions from the board or
anybody. Um, >> okay. Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Thank you for the presentation. Uh, board members, any questions, comments? >> Yeah, I have a question, please. Yes, >> sure, Michael.
Maybe you can clarify for me. So you're you're keeping the left side of the house and you're building new on the right side. >> So in keeping the left side, you don't need a variance for the left side
setback. >> Correct. Because it's existing not >> and why and maybe this question for Derek. Why is a variance not needed for the right side if that's new and and if it's only going to be 7.8 ft
from the lot? >> So, um the plan submitted showed that these existing portion that's to to remain is to remain and that's grandfathered. I mean that's an existing nonconformity. But then I heard testimony that you want to replace the
basement under there which would require a variance from the sideyard setback. So if that stays as it is now, which was the my understanding, there's no variance needed for that. Um if a basement's replaced, then a variance should be requested for the side guard
setback of 7.8 ft or or whatever it is. So maybe if you could clarify that for the board. >> Yeah, sure. I can cl I can clarify that. um we won't replace the basement in in based on the what you just said Derek um because we don't want to add another variance to the list at this late uh time in the game. Um that's going to
bring us back to another meeting. So what we'll do is basically we'll just repair that existing foundation and the reason we went with not repairing the whole foundation is because it was not cost-effective. But we can repair that section of foundation if we have to. And it's a repair. It's
not a replacement because we can stop the leakage by waterproofing the outside. We can reinforce it from the inside. and you know add concrete or whatever is necessary in order to reinforce it. It's not stable at the moment or it won't be stable after we build this new larger heavier home on it.
>> Okay, Michael, any >> No, that was that was it. >> Uh any other questions? >> Yes. So, compared to the other houses that have lots that are too small,
is the size of this house bigger, about the same, smaller? >> Um, it's going to be bigger because it's a two two-story home. You know, the existing home that's on site right now is a very small home. I think it's uh about 1,200 square feet, maybe less. Um,
I don't know the exact size of the home to the left. The home to the right is larger. It's a two-story home, so it's probably more in keeping with our homes. The the homes to the north, there's at least four of them that are probably in the 25 to 3,000 foot range. So, some of the ones in the smaller lots are are
certainly smaller and some of them are one story, some of them are not. So, there's a variety of lands. There's also a variety of lot sizes in that area. Um, mostly small. >> Thank you, >> Donna. Um, a couple questions. Um,
Taylor's memo mentioned something about whether um, the property owner had inquired of surrounding property owners if they need. >> Yes, there was an inquiry made to the property owner on the left. They have no interest in selling. They also have an undersized lot. >> The property owner on the right,
>> the property owner has a larger lot. There was an there was an attempt to contact him. We were not successful with that attempt. But we also noticed that if he were to have the additional 10 feet that we need for our lot, he would then in turn lose his driveway and his access to his garage. So, um that would
entail basically renovating that house as well or changing the driveway location at the very least. Um but um it would also create the potential of a um non-conformity on his property because now his garage is going to be maybe too close to the property line. there's only
about 28 29 feet between our property line and their house. Um, giving us 10 feet of that would eliminate his driveway. So, for the although we did try to speak to him anyway to see if there was any way of working it out, but it doesn't seem possible without renovating that
house as well, >> making a front entry garage, moving the driveway, etc. >> And and potentially a non-conformity of the sideyard. So, we'd be passing our non-conformity to that property. Okay. Can we talk about the garage? Um,
I'm looking at your existing property and the proposed and both of them say proposed garage. So, is the garage something that would be brand new? >> Yes, brand new garage detached behind the rear yard of the house.
>> Okay. And Derek, does it or or Taylor, does does it need a setback variance? I mean, does it meet the setback criteria? >> It does. 5T. >> That's correct. It's an accessory structure. It's uh
less than 15t in height. So, it it has a 5ft setback. >> So, it meets it. Okay. Thanks, >> Perez. Just one more question for you. You said uh you you was it you who
actually had a discussion with the adjacent property owner? >> It was not me. It was the owner. >> The owner. Okay. >> Yes. >> And >> and and he reached out to the property owner on the north as well. Just not successfully speaking to him. >> All right. But one of the adjacent lots
has at this point they're not nonconforming with respect to light area. But you're saying if they were to provide land, it would make them nonconforming. >> I think so. I think there they would be in violation of the sideyard requirement of 15 ft.
>> Okay. >> And and yeah, >> and let me just ask the applicant. So, sir, you said you reached out to one neighbor as well as an additional neighbor to the north. Did you were you able to speak to him or
>> with the one of the on the left side? 4 410. >> Okay. So, you spoke to the owner at 410? >> Yes. >> And did you try and reach any other neighbors? Did you reach out to anybody else? >> Uh 424 on the right side. Yes, of
course. >> Okay. >> Yeah. On both. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Um, before we go into public session, Mr. Perez, would you like to Oh, wait. Eve, do you have a question?
>> Give me a second to unmute. >> I'm I'm a little concerned about the patching the old and the new basement together. And I guess that's not really my personal worry, but I'm just wondering
if if it if we might all agree that it might be better to have one con one brand new basement. Um I mean, I don't know if it's maybe it's maybe it's fixable. Maybe it's not a big deal, but would that then trigger some
very complicating maneuvers that we would have to do? And would it in fact mean that we would need to reconsider this at a future meeting or is that something we could >> Derek? Can we do that? I
>> I mean it's uh it's really a noticing issue. I think uh I don't know what the applicants notice they should have noticed for the variance um before they came here and the application should have reflected it. So I don't know Karen if that can be
subsumed if their notice did include that catch all any other waiverss or the board deems necessary but I I think it's uh >> I'm not I'm not sure that it did. Um,
and what that would mean then is that the additional variance they would need is what now? If they were to, they would need a sideyard setback variance as well. >> Yes, ma'am. 7.8
ft versus 15. >> Well, >> so kind of by grandfathering it, we don't touch it. It just >> correct. because it's >> I mean I had the same thought but I just don't know I just don't if they'd asked for it I think it you know
it would have been noticed and would have been the board was agreeable >> Dar can I ask this question what if we were to replace the foundation without taking the building down >> I I don't know I don't know how you do that >> well just like when we raise houses we
hold it up in the air and we build a new foundation below What's kind of the circular argument why we got here? Because the whole foundation, you were going to save the foundation before and we weren't going to call it a new home. But now, >> that's correct. It turned into new home and that's why we're at the variance meeting. >> Well, we've got the notice on the screen
and yes, they did ask for any other variance relief deemed necessary or appropriate by the applicant of the board and which may arise during the course of the hearing process. So, I guess the only question is for the
neighboring property. Um, now there would be an encroachment into their sideyard and they didn't get notice of it. So there's a question I guess of whether
technically the board could go ahead and grant it balanced with does the board think it would have been appropriate for the neighbors to know about that that now there was going to be an encroachment in the sideyard.
I think before we decided we Karen and Derek have to tell us whether we could do it. >> I mean it would have been cleaner if they' had noticed for it. Um at the end of the day there'll be excavation 7 ft from the property line versus the
15t foundation that they're going to dig now. So um it's a it's a tough call. Okay. Well, let's uh move on. Eve, we can come back to that uh in the executive conversations. Oh,
>> see if there's any >> What, Derek? >> I mean, maybe someone from the public has a >> Yeah. >> the neighbor. I don't know if they're here. >> Yeah. Let's uh Mr. Perez, do you want to give a summary before we go into the public portion? Yeah, I well I did give
my summary as far as the the lot being an existing non-conforming width and frontage. Um there's an existing sideyard encroachment that's grandfathered in. Um we are asking for relief of the 75 of the 85 ft requirement in l of the existing 75 foot
on the l the lot. Um the variance will not harm the public good or the zoning plan if given. Um it is the only necessary relief for this project. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We'll close this portion unless there's a question.
Anyone have a question? Okay, we'll close this portion and go to the public. If there's somebody in the public who would like to speak, please hit the raise your hand button at the bottom of your screen and we will transfer you over to this meeting.
I see we only have two members of the public and I don't see either hand going up. Give you another second or two. Claudia, I don't see one to you. >> No, there are no hands.
>> Okay, we'll close the public second and before we go to executive session, Mr. Perez, you may again give us a summary if you'd like or I think we can remember what you've said. Yeah, I mean the only thing I would say is that um you know if we can't replace the whole foundation because of the um side set guard
situation, we understand our drawings are already drawn that way to keep the existing foundation in place. We like to replace it so everything's brand new uh except for that existing portion of of the house that's above grade. >> Okay, thank you.
Uh we'll now close the this portion and go into executive session. We can gladly discuss this. Any questions or comments, motions? I happen to like the architectural look
of the property and I think it will add to the the area. But thank you. >> You know, I I kind of share Eve's concern about the basement. Um, and
you know, it's it seems it might be cleaner to um to maybe renotice and let the neighbor know. And if the neighbor comes in to talk about it, fine. If not, they don't. Well, I I wonder
I guess cleaner for who? for everybody. I think for the applicant because it gives them certainty. I think for the board because it gives us some completeness maybe. I mean, but I would
defer to what Karen thinks about that. >> Okay. Great. >> I I feel that the the applicant can make their own decision on the foundation and if they want to proceed as they
presented it then fine. I mean it's it's going to be subject to you know uh instruction code and they can take whatever risk they want. Um,
sounds like they don't feel they're taking much of a risk as they presented it. Um, you know, so I supported C1 as is as they submitted
it. But I I agree with Michael. I don't think we need to try to help design this. Other comments? Motion. Don't be shy. somebody.
>> I I agree with um letting the architect and owner decide what they uh feel is right for their foundation. Uh so I would move to approve it. >> Thank you. Bernice says moved. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Thank you, Michael. Uh Eve, I do happen to agree with you. If we could have done it cleanly, we I think it would have been something worth doing. But if we can't, then >> I I just >> Yeah. No, I think it's a reasonable
idea. So, >> good idea. >> Any other comments before we vote on this? Uh Claudia, you want to take the role, please? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes.
Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> no. >> Mr. Dokin, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Shrivever, >> yes. >> Thank you. It's approved. >> Thank you. Good luck with your home.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> Uh, any other comments before we adjourn? Otherwise, have a happy holiday and we will Donna and Eve, I hope you make it through the next week of uh holiday
planning and uh we will see you all next year. Thank you very much. >> Bye. Bye everyone. >> Happy holidays.