Okay, let's begin. Good evening. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on April 23rd, 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 Build Complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet, town topics, the Times, Trantonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of
Princeton on April 17, 2025 and has been posted to the to the municipal website pursuant to the extension of the ongoing state of emergency by executive order
292 in accordance with the emergency remote public meeting protocol for public bodies to conduct a public meeting without physical attendance by members of the public. Notice that during this extension of the state of emergency, all regular and special
meeting 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 Princeton on the 24th day of April,
2020. Such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and on the Princeton website and are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy. Hey, sorry.
I was going to pick it up. Oh, sorry. and and by transmitting a copy of the same to the Princeton packet, Town topics, the Times, Tranonian, Comcast Media, and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton. Notices have
been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. Claudia, can you please call the role? Miss Chen, Miss Coulson here, Mr. Floyd here,
Mr. Shrivever, Mr. Stein here, Miss Donna, Mr. Duncan here, Chairman Cohen here. Thank you. Okay, we have three resolutions this
evening. We'll do those first. The first is case Z24-579. Um 17 Madison Avenue, block 28.03, lot 53 in the R4B zone. Uh the
resol the resolutions were sent to you the other day and they are on the website. Uh does anybody have any questions on the resolution? anything we should talk about or in the absence of that does someone want to make a motion?
Um, I'll move approval of the resolution. Thank you. I'll second that. Okay. Miss Coulson, yes. Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr. Stein.
Yes. McCoy. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, our second resolution of the evening is case Z22-295 block 49.01 lot
2.01 in the E2B zone. Once again, this is Oh, by this is 13 Prospect Avenue. Um the resolutions were emailed out and are are on the website. Um board members I all you also got a
revised draft but you may not have had an opportunity to look at it since it was emailed to you. Um so I could highlight for you the changes that we're proposing to make uh to the resolution that was in your
package. Um, would you please? Yes. On page three of the resolution, the bottom, I'm just going to clarify that the applicant, not only are they not seeking approval for any new parking spaces, they also no longer intend to
make changes to the driveway, the trash area, the retaining wall, or related elevations. And then on page seven at the bottom again it's the same clarification. Uh we'd had some further
discussions with staff and so I want to make clear that again those improvements now are not being sought by the applicant right now. They're also not creating any new parking spaces. And then finance fee J paragraph
10. Uh since they were only seeking approval for the main primarily the uh elevator tower, the only conditions in the review memo that Derek and Dan Weissman did are
uh limited conditions which have to do with making sure they get third party approvals. uh complying with historic preservation and uh providing any necessary estimates for uh inspection
fees and any required bonding. And then the same thing under the now therefore again we're just making these clarifications because I don't think it was particularly clear before. So those are the changes that we're suggesting to
the resolution. Thank you. Okay. I assume the applicants seen this. They have. Okay. Good. They have. Board members, any questions, comment, or
would someone like to make a motion? I'll move approval of the motion. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll second it. Thank you. Miss Coulson, yes. Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr.
Stein, yes. Chairman Cohen, yes. Thank you. Okay. Our third resolution of the evening is case Z24- um 595 555 uh block 50, excuse me, 79 Prospect
Avenue. Um block 50.01, lot 4 in the E2B zone. Once again, oh excuse me. Once again, the resolutions were emailed and in and are on the
website. If um there are any questions, please bring them up. If not, if someone would like to make a motion. I'll move to approve this. Okay. Thank you. I will second time. Thank you,
Gloria. Miss Coulson, yes. Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr. Stein, yes. Going. Yes. Thank you. Our fourth and final resolution is U 650 Great Road application
Z24-481 block 851 lots 101 1.01 2.01 112 in the E4 E4 I forgot. I can't read my own writing.
Um E4T zone. Okay. Um the resolutions were in your packet. Questions, comments, or motions? Okay, I'll move to approve it. Thank you. Second.
I will second. Stein. Thank you, Claudia. Miss Bolson. Yes. Mr. Stein. Yes. Chairman Cohen. Yes. Thank you. Okay. All right. We have um three
applications this evening. Uh the first one is case Z24484 block 47.02 lot 36 in the R4 zone. Um this is for a time extension.
Derek, can you frame this for us? Derek, I'll swear you in for the evening. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Um the applicants and trustees
of Princeton University are the owners of 58-60 William Street. Um they received approval from the zoning board of adjustment at its regular meeting held on June 26, 2024 to permit additions and alterations to the property at 58-60 William Street.
Variances were granted for D floor D4 floor area ratio and numerous C bulk variances for lot area lot width depth front porch sideyard setback smaller sideyard setback combined sideyard setback rear yard setbacks height to
setback ratios AC condenser setbacks impervious coverage parking spaces stall width and parking setbacks. Uh the decision was memorialized on August 28th, 2024 by resolution number Z24-484 and was published in the
Princeton packet on September 6, 2024. The applicant is requesting a one-year extension to September 6, 2026 um section B17A 213 permits the board to grant one 12-month extension of variances for good
cause shown. The applicant should address the reason for the extension. Um, if you have any questions, I'd be glad to address it. Mr. Chairman, I'm just going to I should have indicated earlier that the the applicant was required to notice. They did so and uh
the noticing is in order. Sorry, I forgot to ask. Okay. Um, are we going to hear from the applicant or are we Yes. Mr. Chair Christopher Grezia, how are you? I'm good. and you good, good.
It's been a been a while. Um, for the record, my name is Christopher Degreesia from the law firm of Fagory, Drinker, Bidd, and Wreath here on behalf of the applicant trustees of Princeton University. Um, Mr. Bridger has already sort of outlined the timing of this. Um,
under normal circumstances where you would have a a renovation project um with this much complexity and detail, dealing with a older house and having to um hire the right people to do the work on it, you would typically have a site
plan, but um which would vest you for two years and give you three one-year extensions. But because this is a duplex, it it actually is exempt from site plan. So when we came in, we um we basically just had a variance
application. So um unfortunately um the municipality of Princeton has an ordinance that's unique and cuts off rights if you don't have a construction permit within a year. So and and for a project of this magnitude and with um
this type of um detail required for the actual construction, we have to go through steps like the normal course compliance. In this particular case, um we have to work through some uh meetings with the neighbors that was the homeowner association of Firestone
Court. We're still working on putting together the construction team that has the expertise in dealing with these types of renovations. And um the way your ordinance written, it just automatically cuts off rights. Um and we've put way too much time into this
application. There's about 4 and 1/2 months left. So, we feel that it's it would be very reasonable to extend it to September 6, 2026 to allow us to kind of go through um all of the the steps we
need to to bring this um so we could we can move forward on this application. Board members, any question of uh Mr. Degresia? Okay. Um Claudia, well will Mr. Degresia, we're going to open this up to the
public before I do so. Do you want to add anything else? No, I I mean I I have someone here from Princeton University, but it really doesn't really, you know, if there was any type of questions. Um I have the director of real estate, but we don't really have anything to testify
to. We just think that we uh need more time to get this to get this lined up. All right. Okay. Um I'm going to open up the public portion of the meeting. If there's anybody in the audience that
wants to speak on behalf of this application, please indicate that by um ra pressing the raise hands button at the bottom of the screen. Ludia, has anybody indicated they'd like to speak?
There are no hands. Okay. All right. I'll close the public portion of the hearing. Again, Mr. Degresio, before we go into executive session, do you want to add anything? Not at this time. Okay. May May I ask
just for clarification? Um, it sounds like you're saying that it will take maybe four more months to get sort of the paperwork in order or the approvals in order and then you like a year to do the to do the construction or um No, no,
no. What I'm saying is um under your ordinance everything automatically gets cut off if you don't have a construction permit in hand after a year of the you know of the publication of approval for that initial resolution.
Come September, which is only about 4 and a half months from now, if we don't have everything lined up, our approvals get voided and we have to start from square one, which, you know, it took us a year or so even before we got to the planning board because we had to study
this very uh old older duplex and put together um a plan, look at the structure, you know, figure out the best way to renovate it. Um, so at this point, we need the extra time to go
through compliance review, which is to make sure that the plans have addressed all of the comments in the in the staff reports to meet with the neighboring homeowners association to work through issues with them. They had a couple concerns and we said we would sit down
with them. That's going to take a little time. Um, and then of course to put the construction team together, they're the experts there and to process the permit. So, you don't get a permit day one. You have to submit it. There's questions. Um, and on this particular kind of project where there's a lot of, you
know, very a lot of per, you know, a lot of details, um, it's going to take us a while before we'll actually have a permit in hand. Thanks, Eve. Once they get a building
permit, there's they've started effectively. they have six months to start work and ask for a cons an inspection just to the uh validation of the permit. So they just have to get the permit issued by September
6th. So okay, thank you. You're welcome. So um board any questions? If not, someone would like to make a motion. I move we approve the extension. Okay,
we have a second. Second. Floyd. Okay. Um, Claudia, can you call the role, please? Miss Coulson, yes. Mr. Floyd, yes.
Mr. Stein, yes. Miss Dokins. Yes. Chairman Cohen. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. You're welcome. I have a good evening. Okay. Our next case is
uh 141 Dodd Lane, case Z25-811, excuse me, 611. Uh block 46.03, lot 22 in the R4 T-zone. Uh Karen, are all the notices in order? Yes, the notices are in order.
The board has jurisdiction tonight. Okay. Um Derek, can you summarize your memo for us? Yes, sir. Thank you. You're welcome. Miriam Anidish Baragis, excuse me on the pronunciation of the name, are the
owners of 141 Dodge Lane are seeking a C1 and C2 variance to permit approval of conversion of a two bay front entry garage to a side entry garage which was constructed without zoning approval. Properties located in the R5T zone in
the former Princeton Township, the lot in the existing single family house uh are complying with respect to the applicable bulk requirements. The applicant was granted zoning approval to permit alterations and additions to the existing home in January of
2024. Um it was determined at the time of the final inspection that the two bay front entry garage doors had been converted to a side entry two bay garage. Um the front entry doors were an existing non-complying feature as front
facing garages require 16 ft setback from the nearest facade. Uh the constructed side entry garage doors while less obtrusive than the two front facing garage doors require an 8ft set 8ft setback from the nearest facade in accordance with section 10B
2552 E1A. Variance relief is requested. The uh required setback is 8 feet. The proposed setback is zero feet. And I note that in conjunction with the revision of the garage doors, the
uh driveway was reconfigured to accommodate that new design. And there are a few non-compliances with that regarding the driveway width at the curb which is 14 ft. The existing is 17 ft. and the maximum driveway width at the property line is restricted to 10
whereas the existing is 13 and a half feet. The applicant has indicated that these violations will be corrected and that no variances will be requested. They've re requested consideration both under the C1 and the C2 criteria. That's my memo. If you have any questions, I'd
be glad to try to answer them. Any questions of Mr. Burgger? Okay. Um, who is going to present this case? Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee from for the applicants.
Thank you everyone uh for hearing us tonight. Um, as Mr. Bridger said, we're talking about the renovations to the home uh now completed at 141 uh Dons Lane. In a few minutes, I'll introduce the homeowners uh Nadish and Miam um who
actually have quite a connection to that street. um and uh are really delighted to to remodel and and call this street their home uh once again in Princeton. Uh unfortunate story here um in
purchasing the home and remodeling it um as Mr. Bridger said, there was an existing frontfacing uh non-conforming garage on this site. uh their plans were uh and to keep that same footprint and uh not change the
garage. That was what was approved by zoning. But once they started building it, um they got together with their builder um and looked at the driveway configuration. You'll see um why they looked at it. Um it was a kind of a straight shot to a an intersection
across the street. um and thought about making it what they thought to be more conforming uh by turning the non-conforming front-facing garage to a guess a more conforming and more preferred Princeton style sideways but not fully conforming sidefacing garage.
Uh unfortunately uh even though they weren't I think they were thinking that they weren't increasing the non-conformity a variance really was required. So when the the final inspections occurred, um everyone realized that uh a variance was needed
to turn the garage doors sideways. Um and um so we are here uh in in retrospect to ask for relief. Uh while we did say on C1 or C2, it really is well potentially a hardship for to move it back, it really is um more of a
C2 variance. Um, if you all recall the the 2016, 2017, 2018 discussions about neighborhood character, front and center uh for new construction uh was the idea of these front-facing garages. And a lot
of time was put towards limiting and and curtailing uh the kind of tear downs that occur um uh or were occurring uh rather than renovations. Here we have a a renovation um uh to the home. The existing footprint uh and a non-conforming
front-facing garage that was actually by turning it uh made more conforming. Uh we're not disagreeing with Mr. Bridger's interpretation that a variance is is needed. Uh but when looking at the purposes of zoning in this case, the desire of Princeton to have um not uh
garages that are not as carentric uh not as visible from the street. Um so by turning it sideways uh we believe and hope you'll agree that it becomes more conforming and and as a C2 perspective a better um design for the home. And again
as Mr. Bridger said in in moving um the driveway to the side. Uh you'll see again when we go through our slides why they did that. Um u and the benefit perhaps of not having it line up and create a four-way intersection uh at the
prior location. Uh but there were again some field conditions uh two at two points it was wider than it should be. Uh again we we represented in and will that that's being corrected. Uh we're not seeking variances for the uh I'll say slightly uh but the the driveway that was put down uh wider than it
should have been. Um we've got I guess two sets of witnesses. I've got both of the homeowners here uh tonight and then Jeff Fleer, our architect if there's any questions really about um not say what was done but the design of the home. And if it's all right, I'd like to have all three of them. Uh, two happen to be uh
on one camera tonight. Um, sworn in as our witnesses this evening. That's fine. We just need the homeowners to unmute themselves. Great. If you would all raise your right hand, you swear or affirm your testimony
this evening will be truthful. I do. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And if Miriam, if you want to just briefly introduce yourselves and uh kind of uh explain your connection both to the street and and and Princeton and and apologies. I'm I'm I'm glad that you're
both here. I know uh um there was a some questionable uh bedtime timing with tonight, but glad that we could have both of you as witnesses here tonight. Yeah. Hi guys. Uh my name is Nidish and this is my wife Miriam. Thank you guys all for your time. Um I'll let uh Miam speak first. Yep. So, uh, night, thanks
for having us on today. Um, so I moved to Princeton in 2003 to Dod's Lane, um, the same street that, uh, our new home is on, and my parents still live down the street, um, which is great. I attended Princeton Middle School and graduated from Princeton High School, so
we really have a really strong connection to this town. Um, I always dreamed of moving back to Princeton, and I feel so fortunate that, um, we're able to, um, raise our two kids here. Um, our current neighbors actually I used to babysit for when I was in high school.
So, uh, we know their parents well and we know their kids well. Um, but it was really important for both Nides and I to remodel the home and not, um, have a new build. You know, Princeton and especially Dods Lane, um, in our opinion is such a charming street and we really
wanted to keep, um, the charm as much as possible. And, you know, for myself, you know, I grew up in central Jersey most of my life. I went to Ruckers University and you know since marrying Miam I got more familiar with Princeton as a town and you know having spent a
lot of time on Dod's Lane I always thought in the back of my head that uh you know it would be great a to live in Princeton but also like if there was ever a home on Dod's Lane you know especially with our two kids now that's uh 3 years old and uh 6 months old it would have been uh great and then you
know when we found this opportunity um you know we were really lucky and you know we thought let's renovate this home and keep the existing footprint and and see what we could do. Um, and then, you know, for Miriam and I, one thing that we noticed after the renovations began
was how kind of car centric this driveway was. So, our driveway intersects, it's on Dod's Lane, but it intersects Bertrand. So, from Bertrand, it's a straight shot into our driveway. And, you know, we just felt that after thinking about it a while, it was really
dangerous for a young family like ours because, you know, our kids like our our three-year-old likes to play in the driveway. And, you know, as our as our kids get older, we're going to spend a lot of time on the property. And we had noticed like, you know, a bunch of cars uh taking K turns in into our street, halfway into our drive into the old
driveway, I should say. And, you know, we just got really nervous and and wanted to uh, you know, get it away from the main part of the street. So, you know, we didn't think much of it because we thought that we're not changing the footprint. So, that we wanted to kind of, you know, kind of keep it uh to the
same, you know, footprint over there and and didn't think much of it. So, you know, our goal really was to just kind of keep it make it more safe for our family uh and and mainly for our kids. And um you know, we're here now to speak on the behalf. And I've spoken to my
neighbor uh Ry who borders the driveway and uh uh I believe he said he's going to join on later uh in the public portion, but he's in support of this. I also spoke to uh Peter Tovar who's at the home uh right across the street at
140 Dods Lane as well as Leslie Livingston on 154 Dods Lane and the neighbor next door uh Darab Ellis at 164 Dods Lane and they're all in support uh of this uh of this change. But more
importantly, uh we're hoping that we can get your support because it was an honest mistake that we didn't realize um that by, you know, even though we're keeping the same footprint, the garage door goes to the side and it's it's a one bay garage on the side. It's not two different bays. So, it's just one bay um
on the side uh that we're uh hopefully looking for your for your support here. All right. Thank you so much. Um if it's all right, uh we have one exhibit this evening. I believe it's 11 slides. I'd like to have that marked and we can have um uh the applicant start taking it
through us if it's right for me to share my screen. Okay, I did that correctly and you can see that. Uh Nishelle, we'll we'll start um as we usually do here to try to orient the board uh to Dod's Lane. So, this is
uh slide two is a a clip of Princeton's zoning map in in blue there. Is that where your house is at 141? Yes. There's the arrow pointing right to it. Yes. Uh so, next slide three. This an
aerial photo. Uh and this is the home uh prior to your renovations or possibly even during it. Uh there looks like there might be a construction trailer uh in the the front, but just quickly note um uh particular I guess you're talking about Bertland Drive and and as
previously configured your driveway was essentially an extension of of that street. Yeah, it was a straight shot from uh straight line from Bertrand onto the old driveway. And uh here slide four, we've got the uh prior conditions. This is this will be
Dodd's Lane uh on the top left to right. On the left was the original home. On the right is the revised home though without really much of a change to the footprint. Uh the original configuration was the driveway right straight from the street right kind of from Bertland uh
into your front-facing garage. Uh then you essentially realize that you you know during construction that it might be make sense to reroute the the uh driveway and and just turn the doors to the side. Is that right here? Correct. On the right side. Correct.
So uh no no change to the garage location or foundation or anything like that. Correct. So, here um this is a photo or street view of the house pre-rennovation. So, here I guess we're this is standing
perhaps in about a half a block away in in Bertland kind of looking towards the home. Yeah. Uh Bertrand. Yeah. Sorry about that. Uh thank you. I I I I don't have the benefit of you guys have kind of grown me up on the street, so apologies for getting the name wrong.
Um, uh, but here we're looking straight up at the front-facing garage that was there. Uh, correct. And then here's the, uh, view of the remodeled home. Uh, you can kind of see, but the the garage was
now in the same location, but turned to the right. Correct. And maybe this is a good time to recap again your your thinking and reasoning for relocating the the driveway as well. Yeah, I mean, you know, for us, it it really came down to our children because
they love to play outside and we just wanted to create a safe environment for them and, you know, just the thought of having seen cars making turns on the driveway, you know, just the thought of maybe accidentally a car going further away and, you know, little children outside just didn't want to take a chance. So, we just thought it would be
a lot more safer for us uh to put it away from the uh intersection of of the street, previous location there on the left, closed up curbcut, and the the new driveway location. And again, just for the board's benefit, uh it may be that some of these dimensions, they may have
already been corrected in this photo, but um uh will be corrected to conforming widths uh for uh at the at the curb line as well as at the uh lot line uh for the the distance. And asphalt hasn't been laid down yet, so we
can whatever corrections need to be made there can if that's okay with you guys can be made. Yep. Yep. Just go back to the previous slide just for a second. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to see. Yeah, it's fine. Thank you.
I'm I'm glad you did that because I was a little confused by the where the tree was in the after picture. It looked like Yeah, the walkway gives it away, right? Um, so, uh, certainly not going anywhere, but I'm going to introduce our
our architect next for a couple of slides, but if there's any questions for the applicants, um, happy to to pause now, uh, before we switch over. Okay. Board members, any questions? Please proceed. Mr. Ken, thank you. Um,
uh, Jeff, if you could, I know you've testified before this board many times, but, uh, briefly, uh, give the board the benefit of your, uh, credentials as an architect. Hi, uh, Jeff Fleer here. Uh, I have a bachelor's of architecture from
New Jersey Institute of Technology. I've had my own firm in Flemington, New Jersey for the past 30 years. Mr. Fleer, we will accept you as an expert in your field. I think one more applica application from him. He gets a free coffee from the board on his on his
punch card perhaps. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so Jeff, uh, slide seven here. These are the elevations. Uh, I guess the the first one on the left is what zoning had approved. Is that correct? And then the right represents the kind of the field change design, you
know, drawn up after the fact. That's correct. Yes. the the house on the right has the garage facing the street where it previously was and then the house on the left has windows in place the garage door and the garage door would be on the
side. Now from the a perspective of the actual garage as a room or building, were there any changes to it foundation or otherwise other than moving the doors uh you know from the front to the to the side? No, there were no other changes to the garage. I'm guessing it's it's not
the biggest garage here because of uh you know it is it is square um or closer to square than than than some there wasn't a lot of uh left to right change versus a front to back. That's correct. Yes.
Uh slide eight. We've got some photos of that um side facing part of the garage. I guess kind of mid mid construction before the landscaping is finished up here. Is that right? That's correct.
All right. Uh next, um we we've clipped a couple of pieces from the neighborhood character um ordinance and exercise. And you know, one of the ways that uh um well didn't get all of the answers right um necessarily in explaining things. One one thing that it really did a nice job
of was with these formbbased zoning diagrams. So, um, we can contrast what I think, um, hopefully we all agree that the exercise was looking to do, which was to limit or restrict and make it harder, uh, for front-facing, uh,
garages, uh, which Princeton had determined um, were very carentric uh, and were were leading to some um, some issues with the character of neighborhoods that uh, were essentially, you know, warranted an entire program to
investigate and and change through zoning. Um so we've clipped here the section for front area garages. Um on the left is the formbbased neighborhood character zoning image that shows how a
front facing garage could possibly work. Um on the right is actually our site plan um shaded in with what we would have been able to do had they not changed the pre-existing non-conforming
front-facing garage. So here uh to be conforming the garage should be set back 16 ft from the nearest part of the front facade. That's this a dimension. Uh on the right is what we would be permitted to keep or revert to which instead of 16
feet u is zero feet. Um Jeff, anything to really add to that? Uh no no you you you've described it well. Um oddly I'll I'll note in subnation, but the you know the prince's
rules on alterations of pre-existing structures do allow them to stay and be altered to an extent as long as they're not intensified. And Jeeoff, I'll ask you um when we get to the next slide, slide nine or slide 10, excuse me. Um do you believe that the
um nonconformity in the after condition um is intensified in any way? No, I don't. Okay. Um so here, similar setup to the last slide. So that was the front-facing garage requirements. Here's the requirements for the preferred sidefacing garage. So on the left it's
the neighborhood character drawing once again uh shows a sidefacing the preferred garage arrangement but with a smaller setback. So whereas the original condition required a 16 ft setback and had zero the revised condition with the
sidefacing garage only requires an 8 foot setback. again the footprint already provided for zero but is more conforming uh than the otherwise apparently keep it as it is as of right
alternative. Um Jeff, again, anything else in terms of the utility of the garage that changes? Um uh you know, your understanding of what it what it means to to alter something? Um do you believe that this increases the
nonconformity or or reduces it? I I believe it reduces it. Yeah. Because of the fact that we're we would only be required to be 8 feet on the side as opposed to 16 in the front. And I think just visually it looks nicer
with the windows in place of the garage facing the So moving back here to slide seven to show that side to side elevation. So Jeeoff, if it's your understanding that the neighborhood character ordinance is designed to hide garages and and have them not be as carcentric, would you say the the one on
the right is more conforming and more in keeping with that zone plan than the one that would actually otherwise need to be restored on the left? Yes, I agree with that. Yes. Um so uh unless we have any other questions for our uh architect I'd like
to pause now but then otherwise I'd be u summing up our our case then board members any questions of uh the applicant the architect the attorney thank you so much uh I I don't mean to oversimplify um and and we are here a
bit to uh apologize ultimately um in going through this process and finding a making a field change that everyone thought was better and made more sense. Um I'll I'll say even as a land use attorney, it was pretty subtle the idea that the the change would trigger uh a
variance condition. In in our mind, we're not really intensifying uh a non-existing excuse me, a pre-existing non-conforming u situation. We're not making it bigger. We're not bringing it closer to the street, we're actually while we're not sliding it back um
further, uh which would be challenging, you know, because of the existing uh structure being there. But by turning it sideways, we effectively move it further and take a 16 ft nonconformity uh and turn it into something visually that the code is looking for with a
smaller uh facade setback requirement. So instead of intensifying it, we are de you know the modification or alteration that was done uh reduces the nonconformity and and we hope you agree does it in a way that's visually more
appealing uh that show that um that um benefits uh the property from a better configuration from the driveway. Uh it is less carentric. It separates the car um activities and use uh from the front
porch and the other usable parts of of the house. And uh in terms of a C2 variance, um remember there's no requirement to show a hardship though, you know, I will say moving it back won't won't we believe benefit anyone um
uh necessarily. But this particular property uh this situation is unique in that we have an a remodeling a change um an update to an existing non-conforming garage and by making it more conforming
we think that is u certainly unique to this property. This is not a a request to remove the rules from certainly from all uh applications or something that would have uh impact on on many other uh properties. Uh again, we went through um uh the what we believe to be kind of
reverse engineering and we all sat through or many of us did uh the neighborhood character exercise and the strong preference on uh removing front-facing garages that are prominent and and close to the front of her property uh from uh the design language
of of Princeton. And by making this change, while a variance is needed for the alteration, it does get us closer to that. Uh we uh don't believe that there is any um detriment either to the zone
plan uh or the neighborhood. Um and in fact, the benefits uh certainly outweigh uh the the lack of of detriment. and and then looking to the purpose of the plan. This is one of these unique spaces where you actually feel like we do have some
insight as to what uh council was looking for in creating these rules. And uh we hope you agree that by turning the garage, it does get them closer uh to it without tearing down the house and building something fully conforming. uh
and it also advances uh many of the purposes of of zoning uh which is appropriate um designation of open space on the lot. That's uh item criteria C. Uh G again um space for um uh open space
and private uses. H to encourage location and design of transportation a way that promotes um uh traffic flow with this garage turned sideways. um uh rather than in congestion or blight and
uh a desirable visual environment as well as um uh preventing again I I don't mean to associate frontfacing garages with urban sprawl but ultimately item J as well um there was a determination I think made by Princeton that connects
these prominent front-facing garages to those negative um impacts uh to zoning and and with item J uh turning it sideways and hiding it does um benefit that uh criteria as well. So
again, thank you all for um for your time tonight. Um hopefully uh you agree that this is an improvement um to the otherwise I'll just say as of right pre-existing non-conforming front-facing
garage and that by you know having the homeowner uh turn it back to the way it was uh is of no benefit and is not um better planning um than the alternative of what was was built. So again, thank
you everyone uh for your time tonight. Wow. Okay. Um, any questions of uh board members of Mr. Kennedy or the applicant? But at this
point, um, we'll open it up to the public. If anyone would like to speak on behalf of this application, please indicate that by pushing the uh, raise your hand button. Claudia, has anybody indicated they'd like to speak?
There are no hands. Okay, one second. terribly sorry the Can you hear me now? Can hear you but we can't see you Mr. There's a caddy. I'm afraid I'm on a mobile device. I'm not sure my camera is working. Sorry. Well, let me
try. Uh, no, there's some movement. I see something. Let's see. I apologize. I'm literally in a car uh in Massachusetts, but I wanted to reinforce. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Mr.
Setti, um ordinarily if we can't see the person who wants to testify, we can't let them testify. So, uh is it possible for you to pull over or something? Because we can kind of Well, we see something. Looks very dark though. Makes
sense that you're Well, I'm beginning to kind of see somebody. What about everybody else? I I I can see a change in the darkness. I don't see any uh I don't see any image. Um Hold on one second. I'll
see if I can turn a light on in the car. Oh, there you go. Perfect. All right. I'm sorry. I'm a ghost. I'm a ghost in the darkness. I apologize. That's okay. Could you um please give us your address if you're comfortable doing that? Certainly. I I'm at 127 Dods Lane. I am
in the home that the new garage faces. All righty. And do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. So, I I just wanted to reinforce what Nid and Miriam had said. Um, as their
neighbors were incredibly pleased that they chose to remodel the existing structure within the footprint, they made a number of just gorgeous aesthetic choices with the home, including the turning of the uh the garage. Um, it
faces our home. that facade of the house is quite aesthetically attractive. Um, and I think if anything, the change um, adds to the final footprint and view of the house in the neighborhood. Um, and
they have been incredibly communicative and cooperative with us through the entire process, let us know what the situation was. Um, and uh, we're very much in support of them receiving the variance.
Thank you. Is that all? Yes. Okay, good. Um Claudia, has any anyone else indicated they'd like to speak? There are no more hands. Okay. So, we'll close the public portion of the hearing.
And uh Mr. Kennedy, do you want to add anything before we go in? No, just to thank you all again for your for your time tonight um and and consideration. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, board members, we're going to executive session now and
um comments, questions, motions. I I would like to say that it appears that this was just a mistake on the part of the owner, not recognizing that he had to come back to the board. I think that the uh I think the change is
not significant. Um and I have personally no problem with this. Yes, chairman. I would say I think there's, you know, little change. Obviously, the
slab and the uh placement of the facade hasn't changed. Um, there it is. I also in the past, you know, I've voted for variances like this when we're talking
about an existing structure um and blending with what's there as opposed to make requiring drastic changes or eight or 16 foot.
Um, so I think consistent with some of my past votes, I would support it. Thank you. Any other comments, board members? I I think another um really good benefit
was moving over the entry of of of the driveway for safety reasons. And I could see where that might people might get momentarily confused and thinking thinking they were extending Burch and Drive but really ending up in their
driveway. 30 miles an hour. Yes, I agree with you. Yeah, I think it's I think it makes sense. Any other comments, board members? It just seems to me that the end result
is actually better than it would have been. and you know to make them tear it out is just a waste. I couldn't agree more. Okay. Um if there are any other comments, please make
them. If not, um if someone would like to make a motion. Yes, I'll uh move approval of a C2 um variance for this. Um just like to condition it um that they do um readjust
the new driveway. Um uh so that there wouldn't be uh any violations, the two violations that Derek had cited. So the condition would be they would you know uh eliminate the
varants. Okay. Um do we have a second of the motion? I'll second it. Okay. Karen, do you understand my call? I do. I do. I understand. Okay.
Can you call the role, please? Coulson, yes. Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr. Stein, yes. Mr. Dokkins, yes. Chairman Cohen, yes. Thank you. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you guys. All right. Thank you so much. Okay. Good. All right. Moving right along. Our next case is case number Z25- 607
uh 28-30 Humbart Street, block uh 251, lot 66 6 block what am I telling you? 61 in the R4B zone. Karen, are the notices in order? Yes, they are. The board has
jurisdiction tonight. Okay. Mr. Bridget, can you summarize your memo for us? Eric, you're muted. Thank you. Sorry. Uh 28-30 Elbrooks Homes is the owner of 2830 HR Street. They are seeking
uh C1 and C2 variances to permit the constructions of two driveways providing access to a proposed two family house with two detached garages when only one driveway is permitted. Subject properties located in the for R4B zone of the former Princeton Burough. Subject
lot is complying with respect to the applicable bulk regulations. The existing house has been demolished. Um plans uh have been approved for a new house. The applicant is proposing to construct a new complying two family dwelling with two detached garages. Um
section 17A43 I1A. Uh it's part of our neighborhood character ordinance permits only one driveway opening per lot providing access to the street. The applicant is proposing two driveways, one on each side of the two family
leading to two detached onecar garages located at the rear of the lot behind the dwellings. Variance relief is required. Um, as only one driveway is permitted and they are requesting two. They
requested consideration under C1 and C C2. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, any questions of Mr. Bridger? Okay. Mr. Kennedy, will you be
representing this? I will. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, if we could, um, we've got one other witness. Uh, Larry Murphy is our engineer. Uh, is in the attendee list. If, uh, we could move him over. He'll be our primary witness uh,
here this evening. Um, and uh, so as as Mr. Bridger said this is and if you've driven by recently, you probably saw the construction's already already happening where there is a uh fully conforming uh two family duplex um being built on this
lot. Um it is a conforming lot, one of the few maybe the only conforming lots on on this part of Humpbert Street. Uh and um kind of unique in that respect. the the the general pattern on Hbert one um uh from doing several applications
and and working with the applicant here, uh parking is at a premium. Um, and you will see up and down u the street examples of lots of um unconforming situations or situations that are conforming uh but perhaps are
not the best use of of land or uh from a C2 variance perspective maybe not be the best planning. So, we're here tonight to talk about uh conforming duplex and um adding a second uh driveway so that each
of the unit um uh owners or really renters more likely um would have access to their own driveways. We'll talk about the advantages of this uh particularly in a neighborhood with with parking being a premium. I'll note that the side
of the street that this project is on is not the side of the street where parking is permitted. So there would not be any loss of on street parking and we'll talk through a bunch of different things that we looked at. There is uh you know and was approved by zoning uh a uh to be
built a fully conforming plan but we'll we'll talk through and and show you the many we feel detriments to that and that the advantages of granting this variance to allow uh the second uh curb cut on the lot. And I'll I'll note that on
neighborhood character, you know, we we we got to focus on on that um set of ordinances quite a bit tonight with the side facing garages and the introduction um we believe in 2017 of the one lot one curbcut requirement really followed a an
investigation of single family homes. And while it does apply to residential uses in the zones that it applies to, including two families, um if you recall from that exercise, a lot of the discussion um went to single family
homes and the impact of um uh removing uh small modest homes and building single family homes and and there are contrasting parking um and and driveway provisions. Uh again, uh particularly
when it comes to U-shaped drivers, there is a provision that for certain single family homes, a uh with very wide lots, a second curb cut is allowed. But in that um I'll just say uh historic context of let's say the library and
Hajj. It's not limited to those areas, but those to to recognize that there are parts of prison that have two curb huts. Now, what we're talking about here though um is two livable units in a duplex. And as we go down up and down the Humber, you'll see several kind of
interesting examples of this. Um some of them are not conforming uh but but ultimately that we think will show one that the proposed design is better that the proposed design fits in the neighborhood without any detriment and and only positives um and actually
matches what could be uh not as of right but the predominant pattern on the street uh that you'll see is what I'll call a fee simple uh single family attached duplex. So many duplexes in this part of town are on lots that are
much smaller that were subdivided kind of down the middle of the house and in many cases both of those units have driveways. Now as a single family home on one lot you would be permitted one. Uh now here the applicant's not seeking to subdivide the lot but in from a planning perspective there's not really
any difference that we can point to or think about uh that would show that one is one situation really is different or or worse than the other. one would warrant two and the other one. Particularly when the planning exercise with the immunity character was really
focused on on those single family homes. Um so with that um I'd like to introduce uh our engineer uh Larry Murphy. I believe he's testified here before but I'll um perhaps ask for a slightly more of his credentials uh than uh than Mr.
Fleer who's here every perhaps every every few minutes. But uh Larry, if you could um give the board a benefit of your background professionally and and work on this project. Mr. Murphy, before you start, do you swear firm your testimony this evening will be truthful?
I do. Thank you. My name's uh Lawrence Murphy. I'm with Greenside Engineering Consulting. I graduated Rutgers University with a bachelor's degree in science. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current. I've been practicing civil
engineering for 29 years and focusing on land development applications for 27. I've been qualified as an expert before the Princeton Planning Board and Zoning Board uh historically and I've owned in town since 2003.
We will accept you as an expert in your field. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Um, if we could again I believe I'll have 11 slides, but if I it's all right to share my screen and mark our exhibit uh as a Thank you so much. Y
All right. Uh Larry, as we we normally do, let's um kind of zoom in and and and show the remind the board uh you know, where are the properties talking about here? So this is uh slide two is the zoning map.
Can you just briefly describe uh what we're looking at and where this property is? So, we're on uh Humber Street, which is off of uh Higgins Street. It's a one-way drive going northbound away from Higgins, then connecting to Green View
Avenue. It's located in the R4B zone. As you mentioned before, there's no parking on the west side of Humber. There is parking on the right side of Humber and it's in very close proximity
to downtown and everyone's familiar, you know, when there's events, parking spreads out and uh you know, people visiting the city find whatever parking they can everywhere um down Witherspoon Street into the
treeine streets. So, it's parking is always an issue uh in town. Right. Uh next here, slide three, we've got a kind of satellite view of of the property. Um maybe just talk a little bit about the the prevailing pattern uh
you know, in the in the in the neighborhood. Sure. The uh the the property in question the for the application is highlighted in in blue. Uh you have Humber Street, which is the one way. You have uh single family homes
with zero lot lines. uh some duplexes and you have um uh on Green View Avenue um town houses with the garages under and then uh you have Jefferson to
the right. You have some parking that's accessed uh to the back of houses on Humber Street from Jefferson. Uh I think two drive two or three houses from Jefferson. Sorry, two or three houses on Humber from Jefferson get driveway
access to the rear of their lot, which is unusual. And then you also have some u u Hbert Lane and also uh Hbert Place which provide parking to the uh back of
certain homes. Uh there's not a you know surplus of parking on Humber Street. Uh there's uh houses that don't have um driveways. There's houses that have very limited parking. Uh off- streetet
parking. So Hbert on street parking is extremely valuable and and um I guess the lot is is perhaps a little bit unique in that it actually conforms. Many of the lots in the in the neighborhood are quite smaller than uh
than the 60 foot required or the 6,000 square feet. It conforms and it actually allows a two family uh you know conform a conforming two family. It's actually oversized even for a two family. It's uh
um the lot itself is 9,437. So it's just shy of allowing three units on site. So, it's oversized for a a two family dwelling. Then, I guess as we zoom in here a bit,
you can see kind of some duplexes around it. Um, interestingly, this property to the left uh actually has the the configuration that we're proposing, right? That's a duplex with Yep. 1800 has two driveways. One drive driveway on
the left side, one on the right. It's actually condoized. It's it's pretty much exactly the same application that we're presenting tonight. And some other uh perhaps possibly conforming but other
ways of addressing parking. You've got properties where you know essentially the entirety of the backyard has become a parking lot. You'll see that um on the street that we back to as well as some neighboring properties here. Yes, that's uh it's you know prevalent
unfortunately in in town. parking is off streetet parking is so um such a at such a premium. All right. So um here on slide five um this is the proposed
configuration. Um want just again take the the board through what what um from a site perspective um we're looking to do. Sure. So, uh, the site's currently under construction for the two family building, same footprint, same location
that you see here. And also the two garages in the back are also under construction, same location, same size, same footprint. What we're proposing is two uh 9 foot 8 to nine foot wide driveways on the left side and on the
right side leading back to the garage providing five uh off- streetet parking spaces including inside the garage behind the front uh front facade of the building. So that would provide 10 total
of 10 off- streetet parking spaces uh in this uh proposal. And if you if you look at this proposal, you see a substantial amount of green space behind the covered porch in the rear and also uh between the two
garages to give access to the residents. um substantial green space and also the ability ability to create privacy on site by fencing in a portion of their yard um if they if they choose to. So,
this is a it has not it's a has a nice backyard, usable backyard, and clean movements, pulling in and backing out, straight line, and you know, you you mentioned five spaces. That's not really what's needed
for um uh homes of these sizes, but ultimately with they could accommodate guests uh deliveries without taking up street spaces. Correct. So, one one and a half parking spaces are required per unit and that's provided. So, we do comply, but there's an extra three
spaces on site for guests, for people visiting for the holidays and not, you know, the they'd be able to provide three off- streetet parking spaces for visitors without actually using uh parking on street, which is two-hour
parking on the right side. And um so another view that's the the porch we were I was just mentioning before you know access to the you know backyard green space. It's a nice connection. So uh on the right here we've got the the B requires. take us
through all the just confirm that we comply with all of the uh aside from the second driveway uh all of the requirements of the zone. The application completely conforms with the all bulk requirements, the lot area, the lot width, the depth. Uh it was designed
and approved and it's under construction and the only the only change is really the asphalt or driveway location. And in both uh conditions or both proposals, it is a compliant
impervious coverage. So in the two driveway, we're under the maximum allowable imperous coverage. We're not asking for a variance for impervious coverage. Where? No.
Are the cars all in the driveways? Are the cars uh in the driveway? I mean, are that is that what you your your total number of cars on site is? How many? Uh under the driveway would be uh the driveway could accommodate up to
five parking spaces, five vehicles, and also one within the garage. So, four outside and then one in the garage. And so basically you have a onecar garage on each site and a driveway leading to it. Yes. Correct. And
everything else is stacked parking. Yes, it is. And and this is just these are just two duplexes. Correct. And and so as you said, one and a half cars are required for each one. Correct.
So, so if you get that many cars in there, it's going to create congestion everywhere. I I'm I'm more talking about the capacity of the driveway. Yeah, I understand that. But I mean, you don't anticipate 10 cars on this site?
No, absolutely not. It's it's more that when there are guests or deliveries, they'd be able to be on site rather than taking up street spaces. Okay. It's okay. Thank you. Um and so um Larry, Lawrence, if you
could then this next slide talks through what the the compliant design would could be. Um and we can start talking about why our concerns with the compliant design and why we're here asking for a C2 variance for what we think is a a
better design. So, um, if you could start taking the the board through what, you know, a one driveway, um, situation here would would look like. So, you have one driveway on the southern side, uh, coming in and then it
splits in a in a Y. The driveway on the left side, southern side, connects to a garage. And you have a space just outside the garage and a space in the within the garage. So you have two
cars able to park for the left unit. And then you branch off to the right for the unit on the right. And you can get three cars um in that driveway and the garage. And you can see the driveway interrupts, the
green space and the connection to the rear porch. Also, you have circuitous movement trying to back uh turn around or back out on a on a curve. And also the potential for one one unit uh one
tenant blocking or one owner blocking the other unit some potential conflict. So wear I move to the next slide that shows the proposed on the right with the you know the the backyard not being cut off and and the the alter you know the
compliant alternative um to the left. Can we talk a little bit about um one I guess the the idea of stacked parking you know so as the chairman mentioned you know and when we're talking about well guests coming for one particular unit yes they would be stacked um that
is fairly common in in Princeton um but what what cannot occur though if there are multiple units those spaces cannot be stacked they have to be if you have two independent u units like you do with a duplex each unit has to have access to their spaces without the necessary
neessarily jockeying with their neighbors. Is that correct? That's correct. And that's why I was highlighting the the amount of capacity with the two separate driveways versus the driveway one driveway where it splits towards the rear of the building.
So in the compliance situation, if there were to say be the three spaces or you know one and a half per unit that are required here, but a guest for like say the left side came, they would essentially block everyone in and and not um have have a usable situation. Is
that compliant but not particularly usable? Is that right? Correct. Not not desirable. Um a couple of other um u notes. Um, one we we we explored looking at at a possible shared driveway uh with the
neighboring property. You want to just talk a little bit about the why that ultimately couldn't work? you would, you know, effectively have three parties using one shared driveway and I think that would exacerbate it and
we would still be here for a variance because I believe the ordinance indicates once you have a shared driveway, you only can have one curb cut for both properties. I see. So when we we explored the left driveway instead of being a new curb cut sharing with the
neighbor that would actually require both lots to have a variance for an additional curb cut on top of the shared driveway. Correct. And is it also the case that the driveway next door um is not particularly deep so that would
would uh also not um would we interfere with them actually parking? Is that correct? Correct. All right. uh talk a little bit about the turning movements um you know in the back and and I guess the um I know we we initially talked about it in terms of
the usable open space which isn't really a requirement but you know desirable but maybe the the conflicts between the driving across the the house and and why you'd have to put the driveway here versus somewhere else. So from from an
engineering perspective, my preference is, you know, the the two drive driveways on the right because you have easier maneuvering the the driveway layout on the left brings brings the vehicular traffic across uh
pedest, you know, connects it with pedestrian traffic coming out of the stairs. Uh limits the backyard and interrupts the backyard. if you're if you're playing with a ball, your kids running around, it it also provides more
attention to backing out as you're uh especially the unit on the right, you're backing out and trying to avoid the stairs and then making uh a turn to then come down the the driveway. It's a more challenging vehicular movement for a
resident to to make than the the view the option on the right. And uh did we also look at clustering the garages on the the left side as well? uh but that ultimately um
with having without blocking um there was not u sufficient room to for essentially access to both garages without having a stacked car blocking the driveway. So we we did look at clustering the two garages, having the the driveway on the left and also
rotating the the garages to be a side entry. And it it just consumed so much um rear yard and there was so much asphalt concentrated. We we we thought it was a less desirable, less attractive
than what eventually became the application which is proposed on the right. Um, I'll also say it seems that you know in the two designs this sideyard area kind of gets which um I believe is directly adjacent in between
you know a very public area with another home right next door. Uh is this a particularly useful spot for an open space for a homeowner to use? It's not you know the the more discontiguous you know open space is the less useful it
is. Um, so the the right side of the that open space on the right side's going to be less useful than if it were placed behind the building where it would be contiguous with the remaining open space. So we we talked earlier, we
started taking through some of the other examples, some of which are compliant, many are not, of of other parking arrangements uh in the neighborhood. you know, some of which are a little bit unfortunately like the the compliant alternative. So perhaps starting uh this
this is the property that we're talking about here with the red um dot but maybe going from there to the left kind of talk through some of the other parking situations in town that that and and you know why both we perhaps fit the
pattern but also um show a better alternative some of the compliant um options. Sure. So 18 Hbert is is a duplex. Uh it's been conduitized. There's it's one lot. There's a driveway
on the left side and the right side. So there's actually two curb cuts for that one lot, which if constructed today, you know, would require a variance. So it's very similar to the application that's being proposed right now. And then you
have and Larry, by the way, before we leave that one, this is the driveway that we kind of investigated sharing with and that uh because of the the length of it and and other factors, it really would not work as a shared driveway without additional variances. Correct. Apologies, I didn't mean to interrupt.
And this is a I believe this is a single family and there's parking uh or in the rear and and would you describe it? This this one as well as the one that it backs to on on Green View essentially have almost
the entirety of their backyard paid paid to accommodate their parking for maneuvering for vehicular parking. Generally generally I would consider that less desirable. Mr. Murphy, do you know the address of
the property you're referencing now? 32 to 34 Humber. Thank you. And then uh next door I believe it's 12 Hbert which has parking in the front yard. And then I guess going to the corner
which is um 36 uh 36 Wiggins. It has two units and it's parking in the front yard. Uh so that's this this red area here where you see the car. That's actually the front yard parking on on the Humber side of that two unit. It's twocar wide and both cars
back out directly on Humber and 12 is similar. Two car wide and backs out directly onto Humber. Thank you, Larry. Um before we fully get to thank you this
a good slide to have up if you can just take us through you know in your mind the the positives and any negatives to the to the configuration uh that we're proposing. So the what we're proposing uh advances
several uh sections of the MLUL which includes purpose A C E G H I and J. And I I think it summarizes it. Um by providing more on street by providing
more off- streetet parking, we're reducing the on street parking demand on Humber Street, which is um always, you know, off- streetet park on street parking is always challenging in town. So we're creating a benefit by reducing
that demand by providing off- streetet parking spaces in excess of what a compliant alternative is and would be and is currently under construction. And there is no removal or
you know impact to on street parking by allowing the addition of the second driveway because there's no parking allowed on that side of the street. So there's no detriment to the on- street parking or by granting the variance because we're not impacting or
eliminating on street parking. We're actually creating excess parking as a result of this um application. Um another question for you. Um, this is not obviously a proposal to to subdivide and and I believe variances would be
required as well. But if if the proposed duplex were to be uh proposed as a subdivision onto two lots as many of them in the neighborhood are, um, would that then require this particular variance? Would that would that allow each lot to have a a driveway? It would
it would allow each lot to have a driveway, but you would actually require more variances to obtain the subdivision. You'd require lot width. Um, you'd require lot width for it. So, it wouldn't be a variance free
if the subdivision was granted. And if when you're comparing the um the benefits here uh which include the better maneuverability, the additional relief and off- streetet parking uh and
the um safety and open space use for the the residents here. Do you see any um negative um uh in balancing that against any possible detriment? Do you see any any negative there? I I I don't
see any uh negative or substantial detriment. I actually think there's there's a benefit in um proposing the second driveway. And um when we investigated the kind of the purposes, not just the purposes of of of zoning
that you listed that that are advanced by the proposal, but the actual um investigation the town did uh in neighborhood character. Did you see anything there uh in our investigation that showed that this situation that a
twounit duplex was a problem that was looking to be solved by that one lot one driveway uh rule that was uh implemented? I I I don't think it was discussed or reviewed in in depth. I don't think it's uh you know comes up
very often. Right. Um uh before I start I certainly uh want to offer um our our expert and engineer for any questions the board uh might have. I have a
question. Um well two actually. Um um I don't have a problem with the two driveways as a matter of principle. I mean we have a duplex there. I agree. Trying to do the circulation in the back to you only use one driveway is going to
create more problems. Why did you put the garages all the way at the back and require the residents to back out 100 ft on a 9- foot driveway that's not straight all the way back to the street.
So the the the client I'm working with had a preference to the location of the the garages. It it also pro the location provides um maneuverability for backing out to
actually make the K turn that's shown on the on the left side for that upper right or northwest garage corner. I think the chairman's asking about the the the proposed plan. I guess why you're not proposing a
turnaround. Yeah, it's it's a mood point. You're just proposing two straight driveways, garages in the back, no turnaround. Correct. So basically, you got you got a requirement of one and a half cars. They're going to be in the driveway somewhere requiring you to back
out 100 ft to the street. Correct. There's no there there's no envision of I'm going to we need eight parking spaces or five parking spaces. Therefore, we're pushing it back as far as we did. And okay, if it helps um just
maybe this photo might might also help you, Mr. Chairman. Um behind the the there's a lot of parking and uses behind the site that placed the garage in the corner shields the backyard a little bit from um by by placing them kind of uh in
the back uh versus closer up was was also a factor. That's fine. I mean, it's it's that's fine. It's a challenge. You you answered my question. Thank you. Um I' I'd like to make a comment. I had the same issue that our chairman had about
backing out 100 ft. Um but I took a look at the photograph of the adjacent house and you noticed that the car there is facing forward in other words and it's not not all the way back. And my guess is that people living there with one or
two cars would probably be more towards the front of the property. Now, when there's a party and they have a lot of things, that's different. But as a as a general rule, I think people might just prefer to back into the driveway, not
100 feet, but maybe 30, 40 feet. Yeah, I would agree. I I agree with you, George. I mean, putting the garages in the back, I think, creates an awkward situation and encourages people to park closer to the street. And you're right, it's a lot
easier to just back in than try to back out. Yeah. Okay. But that's that's in a sense irrelevant to the, you know, the request for the two driveways. Okay. Um, you know, um, good comment,
George. So, thank you. Unless there are other um, comments or questions for our, uh, engineer, that's our our our testimony. Again, um, very much appreciative of your time. Um, we are, uh, looking at this from a C2 perspective. We think there's many
benefits to to zoning. um both the the purposes of zoning that we heard um the we think does not conflict with the the um desire and purposes of the neighborhood character exercise that
created um the one lot um uh one uh driveway or one curbcut situation. Um and that uh looking at the compliant plan uh cuts off and and essentially wastes a lot of the otherwise usable
backyard area um and creates some uh conflicts essentially uh in in movement. So apologies. I see Mr. Floyd's hand up. I I didn't mean to to speak over. No, that's um um the question I have and actually
it's for either um or for both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Bridger um because I could be wrong. My recollection with neighborhood standard code. Yeah, clearly it says one
driveway. I understand that. But also included a neighborhood code. I thought it also stressed garages in the rear of the site and that was a major part of it. And am
I remembering correctly? I I I want to speak for Mr. Bridger, but I I I agree with you that the the and there was a bit of a contrast. you know, there's a kind of push and pull between pulling them back and being less visible, less car centric, frankly, um, and and almost
limiting the amount of development that could occur. You know, that if you as you pull them back, it is more coverage, which means you can do less on the property. And part of that I was purposeful um, in wanting to have them back there. So, I I'm curious Mr. Bridger's take, but that was my my
recollection as well. Uh, Mr. the code uh basically gives you certain incentives to put the garages behind the house. You get a break in the F. Um there's less setbacks for the rear yard setback and the sideyard setback. So there was
definitely seemed to be the intention of the the planners and at the time, but not not necessarily all the way in the back of the property, just behind the house. Um, well, you get the F benefit if you're behind the house completely. So,
you don't have to be all the way at the rear of the property. Yeah. Be completely behind the house. So, yes. Okay. You don't have to, but I I think I also remember some of the exhibits for that code showed it
purely for a bond house, but I could be wrong. No, I think you're right, Michael. Yeah, I think I am too. I'll chime in. I believe is right as well. Um um so again um thank you all for your
time again in balancing this under the C2. It's not about a hardship. It's about what uh best advances uh the the goals of of of um essentially the zoning code. In this case, we have a little bit more insight because it happened so recently about
what the what the goals really were and how this design does advance it. Um, and then in particular for a tight neighborhood with a lot of undersized lots and a lot of units. This is a conforming um development. U more could
have been built here essentially. Um, but here we're providing the parking in a way that's not going to have guests on the street. uh does not interfere with the part of the the side of the street that allows parking. So, we're not losing any street parking, but we're gaining uh getting cars off the street.
And um by designing it this way with the second driveway, you do get something that matches what you see in the neighborhood. and uh without the expense of a usable backyard for these residents. And the the their applicant is, you know, frankly prefers or excited
to to offer that in a neighborhood that doesn't always have that that almost more often has a I'll say a slightly more complying is if you can believe it, large paved backyard um which we're we're looking to avoid. So again, thank
you so much um for your time tonight and again if there's any other questions, happy to to answer them. Thank you board members. Any questions of the witnesses to so far? Okay, Mr. Kennedy, what's next? Oh,
uh that is it. Uh Mr. Chairman, um so happy to to again if there any other questions, but happy to to yield our time uh back to to the public and and the board. Okay. Before we go into executive to the public portion, do you
have anything you want to say? Um, again, just just thank you and I I hopefully uh you'll agree that this is an overall better plan that fits the uh the C2 flexible variance criteria. Okay.
Thank you. Um, if there's anybody, we're going to open this up to public comment. If there's anyone in the audience who's in the audience who'd like to speak on behalf of this application, uh please press the
um the uh raise your hand button and we'll call on you. Claudia, has anybody indicated they'd like to speak? I don't see any hands. One second. Hold on. Who is the individual? I see somebody who's on the screen here. Mr.
Kate Matz and Miss Hines. Mr. Neielson has his hands up. And Miss Hines. Okay. Okay. So, Claudia, would you like to call on one of these people?
Miss Hines is uh Hi, can you hear me? We can hear you, but we can't see you. Okay. How do I make it so that you can? Well, let's see. Do you see anything on your screen where you can just hit start
video or No, I don't. Let's see. There a camera button? Did you ask? Uh, I I don't see it. Well, all I would I'm in favor of the of the proposal with the two drive two driveways. I live directly behind this
on Green View Avenue. I'm I'm the nearest neighbor at the at the back and I'm in favor of it. Uh so that's all I would have to say. I don't see any camera thing. Okay. Thank you. All right, Claudia. Is
there anyone else who'd like to speak? A lot of people are popping up here. Yep. Okay, for the benefit of people, we see names appearing on the screen. Now, if you want to speak, please press the button that you see at the bottom of
your screen that says raise your hand. And you need to allow me to promote you to a panelist. Okay. Okay. While we're we're staring at people's names here, uh we'll try again. If somebody wants to
speak, please press the button that says raise your hand. What? Did you see anybody raising their hand? No, I don't. Okay. Well, all right. Well, we'll give it a few seconds more
here. Maybe some people know how to unmute, but they don't know how to maybe they don't see. They raise your hand button. It's a small hand s symbol to the left of
center at the bottom. No responses, Claudia? No. No. No hands. Okay. All right. Well, we tried. Um, so we'll uh we'll end the public portion of
the hearing and uh again, Mr. Kennedy, if you'd like to sum up and then we'll go into executive session again. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um, we're two two months in a row perhaps where you're getting out of here
a little uh earlier than uh than average. So, appreciate your time. Um, and I'm glad we could all be a little bit brief this evening. Uh, so that in mind, I'm not going to say much more. Again, thank you for considering this. I I hope you agree that the benefits of
this far outweigh any detriment and we haven't heard any detriment from this. Uh it advances the the um elements of both we think uh the neighborhood character design itself as well as the the purpose several purposes uh of
zoning in a way that uh is just a better design. uh gets more cars off the street um and uh creates a usable green space uh that unfortunately a lot of properties in this neighborhood lack because of the um likely more compliant
large backyard parking lot configuration that so many properties are kind of forced to have. So with that again thank you um and really appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Okay board members let's go into executive session.
comments, questions, discussion, Michael? Um, yeah, I can speak. Um, I find the um, well, let's see. A part of me wishes is it was for sale
housing um that they were going to kind of minimize it and there would be less rental, but you have the right to do what you want uh on that. Fine. I I I like the design. I I I understand the
neighborhood standard on one driveway, but I think um it's this is kind of the reverse of it's not a narrow undersized whatever lot. It's actually a
lot that is a very good size and comes close to um it doesn't quite get there but close to being enough for two single family homes um but it's it's not quite big enough. So I I think it's meeting
uh it's below imperous coverage. It's providing all the setbacks. It's providing, you know, offsite off offsite um or I should say off- streetet parking.
Um I I think it I pretty much agree with um Mr. Murphy on some of the um uh master plan sightings he he did. So, um, you know, it's it's it's not over
maximum height. I mean, there's there's a lot of things that are under or so I'm I I support the the the the variance for this. Um, it provides the open space
air. results. I'm a convert board member. Any other comments? Well, I agree with with Michael. I think this is a uh a good solution. I the idea
of having a uh a duplex with one driveway I think takes away from the overall function of the property in this particular case. Um again my my only concern and it's not my decision because
it all works within the existing zoning. I think the garages should be a little closer to the street to minimize the um the backing out or at least maybe put a little turnar around just a spot to back into so you don't have to back all the way out to the street. But
notwithstanding that I think that the issue at hand of the two driveways I think they work and I think it's a good solution. I agreed with Michael that it provides enough space to get cars off the street which is important on Humber.
So, I would support the application. Board members, any other comments? Or if there are none, if someone would like to make a motion, I'll make a motion if there's no other comments. Motion Motion to approve by Motion to
approve C2 C2 C2 please. Thank you for the second driveway the variance. Okay. I'll second Stein. Thank you. There's no discussion. Any
discussion on the motion? If not Floyer, can you call the role? M. Coulson. Yes. Mr. Floyd. Yes. Mr. Stein. Yes. Miss Dokin. Yes.
Chairman Cohen. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much everyone. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, we have uh no other no other cases this evening. So, we are adjourned. See you all next
month. See you next month. Bye everybody. Bye. Take care. See you.