Karen, can you read the opening? >> I'm gonna start now. Say that again, Steve. >> Karen, would you mind reading the opening statement? I lost my screen here. >> Uh, I would if Hold on a minute. Let's just >> I can get it back here. Just give me a second.
>> Okay, >> we go. Claudia, I don't think you started it. It still says we're in practice. >> I did not. I did not since he doesn't have the opening statement. >> Okay. >> Do you want me to send it to Karen, Steve, or you want to wait? Well, you want to look for it?
>> You know, why don't you send it to Karen? >> Okay. Give me one second. this. I sent it. Let me know if you get it. >> Okay. Here we go. >> Okay. One second. I'm going to start the meeting.
>> Okay. Ready? Okay. Watch what you say because you're going to be recorded. We're on. >> All right. Uh, I'm going to read the opening statement for tonight's meeting. This is a special meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment
being held electronically via Zoom on June 3rd, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. Adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting notice of this meeting on the official bulletin board at the Princeton
Municipal Complex, by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on May 19, 2026, and by posting a copy on the municipal website homepage as a public notice.
>> Okay. Thank you, Karen. Yes. >> Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Miss Chen, >> here. >> Miss Copen, >> here. >> Mr. Floyd >> here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here.
>> Mr. Tenno, Mr. Stein >> here, >> Miss Anna, Mr. Dawkin >> here, >> chairman Cohen >> here. >> Thank you.
We have uh one case on the agenda. It's a continuous continuation of an April hearing. It's case number Z25-72 1128 Great Road um block 3.01 lot 4.01 in the RA and R&B
zone. Uh we left off I believe um at the conclusion of the presentation by the applicant. Is that correct? Uh no, I think they the
we concluded uh testimony was being presented by Christopher Bar who's the manager of uh the entity which is going to be acquiring one of the
subdivided lots. I don't know if he finished this testimony. So, I think we need to hear from uh their council, Bob Casey, as to how they want to proceed right now. >> Okay. Yes, Mr. Oh, there we go.
>> Yeah, I'm putting my name in now, not to be confused with another Casey that might be on the panel. [laughter] Um, thank you all and thank you for your hospitality and and this special meeting
um foremost. Yes, we um we finished we we didn't quite finish Christopher Bar's testimony. I' I've got a few questions for him. So, I would like to call Christopher Bar back to speak a little bit and answer some questions.
>> Dr. Bar, um, I know you were previously sworn, but we'll swear you in again. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Karen. Can I share my screen?
Um, >> yes, you may. >> Thank you, Claudia. Now, I just got to figure out how to do it. All right. Uh, share. Can't miss that. All right. Can everyone see that?
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, this is what was previously marked as A1, >> correct? >> That Mr. Bar was uh testifying to earlier. Let me zoom out a little bit here if I can do that. Who the hell is that's my son?
Um >> every two months. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All we have to do >> we have to swing the fish in. [laughter] >> All right. >> Florida. >> So, yeah. So, this is what Mr. Bar was
testifying about. And as I'll just bring you up to speed and I won't put words in his mouth. I promise. What he was talking about is is how great 1128 Great Road is for what's adjacent to it, right? and how it ties in beautifully to the
only well it's now preserved forest in P in uh in uh Princeton. So what I wanted to do uh Mr. Bar is if you could tell us I know there's some questions and maybe it was in some of the reports as well about access and ownership and those
types of things. Um if I were to zoom in and actually can I share can I do another exhibit too Karen? It'll be A2. >> Okay. All right. >> And A2 is what now? This is
>> A2 is going to be the subdivision plan. >> Subdivision plan. Okay. >> Okay. Prepared by Eric Ruben. >> And do you have a date? Can you see a date? I don't think I can. It's too small. >> I know. Let me see here. Was the last
revision. Oh, Christ. I went the wrong way. Hold on. I think it is November 25. >> Okay. >> Uh November 2025. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh I think it is Eric can tell us better. I uh hold on. Let me see here. Let me go in a little bit more. Yeah. November 25th, 2025. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, Chris, you were testifying earlier about
um the campus and the proposed subdivision and its great location. Um there were some questions about ownership around this new subdivision. And if you could, could you tell us a little bit about um lot 4.05, which was
part of and created as part of the last subdivision that we had, and it's right down here. Could you tell us about that, please? Yes. Um so as I mentioned in my testimony uh previously
um I uh am involved in with managing two nonprofits, Woods and Wayside International u um as well as Ridgeview Conservancy. And Ridge View Conservancy is a local land trust. Um and uh over
the last uh 2 years, Ridge View Conservancy has been engaged with Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart um to purchase uh lot 4.05 uh which I think you're pointing to there, Bob. Yep. Which was a 3 acre um
undeveloped lot that was subdivided uh two years ago from the larger Princeton Academy property. and we concluded that purchase specifically for the purpose of conservation. Uh we raised uh money from private donors uh within the community
as well as from Mercer County uh to purchase that. Um at roughly the same time, uh Ridgeview Conservancy also purchased a 6acre conservation easement uh which runs along the western boundary, the western boundary of um of
the Princeton Academy property. No, the the >> um and uh between the lot 4.05 and the conservation easement. Um this will provide uh public access to that large
tract, the 187 acres of forest that's been conserved that runs adjacent to Princeton Academy. >> Great. And um as you can see on the map here, there's a there's an access here and I'll call this like the back
entrance to Princeton Academy. Is that fair to say? >> Yes. >> And that's going to remain correct. >> That will remain in place. And uh prior to Ridge View Conservy's purchase of lot 4.05, 5 um uh
uh Princeton Academy uh put a an easement uh in place that is recorded with the deed that um provides for uh uh the school's continued use of that back access drive as well as the utilities that run across lot 4.05.
>> That's great. Thank you very much. And now let's direct our attention to to the Great Road and up to lot 4.02. 02 which is this parcel up here that was also created when we did the what I'll call the first subdivision. Can you tell me
about lot 4.02 please? >> Yes. So lot 4.02 2 is a 4acre lot that um through the subdivision process was given permits uh for residential development. And as I mentioned uh I co-manage two different nonprofits,
Ridge View Conservancy as well as Woods and Wayside International. And um a year ago in July, Woods and Wayside International purchased that lot again for the purpose of conservation. um purchased it from Princeton Academy
and our intent is to uh conserve that lot and um potentially provide public access trails. A portion of that lot is covered by um Princeton Academyy's baseball uh field and prior to purchasing it um we agreed to Princeton
Academy having an easement for continued use of that ball field for um u for the life of Princeton Academy. >> And so um fair to say that there'll be no development ever on lot 4.02 or on
lot 4.05. Correct. Uh that's the intent. And just to be very clear, uh lot 4.05 um uh has a deed of conservation restriction in place and that has been recorded with Mercer County. Mercer
County has secondary enforcement rights to that. Uh currently lot 4.02 does not yet have that. That will require some additional fundraising and um but that is our intent to put that in place. >> Thank you. Um,
I I don't think we got to it the other night, but could you talk to us a little bit about just the day-to-day operation of Woods and Wayside and this site and in particular the manor house that'll be part of it, that type of thing? What do you foresee?
>> Sure. So, um, our interest in purchasing the manor house, uh, is to use it as a an office space and as a convening and meeting center for an initiative, um, that, uh, we've started called forest
and climate training or FACT FACT. And um [clears throat] the fact initiative uh is aimed at training the next generation of environmental stewards and advocates and leaders. Um and it's not a
new organization. It's uh an initiative that has been uh catalyzed by Woods and Wayside International together with Ridge View Conservancy. And it is uh a network of partners and uh you know partnering with organizations and
initiatives both locally regionally in the US as well as internationally. Uh as I mentioned in previous testimony uh Woods and Wayside International um has worked um or collaborates with partners specifically in the Brazilian Amazon as
well as in Indonesia and partners working in a number of other countries around the world. Um and uh so we will be using uh the manor house um as office space
for this uh fact initiative um as well as a convening and meeting center um and uh uh over the last year um in collaboration with Princeton Academy uh we've hosted a number of meetings there already and uh it's been
a terrific uh place for that. Yep. >> Can you point to the manor house, please? >> Which is the original mansion? >> That's correct. >> Right. Okay. So, the school will not use that anymore.
>> Well, I I think that they'll use it in connection with uh Woods and Wayside. >> There there um there are provisions in our in our discussions for shared use of portions of the of the manor house. Okay.
>> Thank you. Can can you clarify what you mean by uh shared like what what specific uses would the school be using the uh the manor house for like classrooms or uh something else? That's a very good
question and um uh what we've uh envisioned and what's been discussed is that um Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart uh would continue to use at least two offices uh in the Manor House and
then would continue to have access to the Manor House for uh number of events through their school year. For instance, school graduation. Um, I think there's an annual tradition of of uh hosting a reception at the manor house or holding graduation ceremonies or some portion of
the graduation ceremonies in the manor house or outside the manor house. Um, >> and thank you. >> Can I ask a question? So that the manor house is going to sit on the sacred heart property. The
remaining sacred heart property or the original sacred heart property. >> No. >> So if you can if you look here, Mr. Cohen, um the subdivision line is is going to be right here.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And coming down here b and that's why we have all these variances. Mr. Bridger and Mr. Foot pointed out to us because it's a really unique thing. So we could, you know, preserve the integrity of what actually what's on the ground since no construction.
>> Okay. So, so the manor house is part of the new subdivision. >> Yeah, that's correct. Yes, sir. >> Okay. And that answers the question. My question was going to be what happens if for some reason the Sacred Heart school is not there anymore? Not physically,
but not operating as a school. >> Yeah. I mean that there'll be a piece of property with a school on it that you know could be sold could be I don't think it could ever Yeah. I mean it would be sold. It's there in a conditional use in a residential zone.
So >> you know future-wise it's on a conditional use currently. Um hopefully after tonight there'll be a use variance that runs with it and allows this this to happen. Um, and
you know it would be this acre acreage in the RB RA zone because it's kind of odd zoning in there, but that that's what it would be. >> So the so the all the easements and access easements and everything else would go with it if if it's approved
this evening. >> That's correct. Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. that um sorry to jump in, but um >> that that answers the question about easements, but there's still the um I guess it's more for awareness than
anything else, but um the municipal land use law in New Jersey does require uh frontage uh or at least access uh to the the um to for all uh developable uh
properties. Um so as a result of this subdivision just want to point this out um mainly for the board uh the board's awareness um you know there any future development any future uh use of the site uh the
school obviously is there uh right now it's not planning to expand not planning any new construction but any future development uh would then have to show how access is being maintained to the site specifically for public safety vehicles fire trucks, uh, police
vehicles, uh, things of that nature. Um, so any, so that's just to, uh, piggyback off the question that chair, uh, Cohen asked, uh, less a question because I think it's more so about the f any future potential uses that would be
affected, uh, or even future development of the site by the, uh, the academy, um, that, uh, we just need to be, uh, aware of, uh, that this would, this would cause as a result of that. NLUL requirement. >> I concur.
>> Nathan, just but Nathan, >> as you indicated in your your review memo, the applicant would need to provide the proof that there's adequate emergency vehicle access now to the school lot, right? >> Yes. Yeah. But sorry, I should have said
I'm assuming that's going to be part of the testimony. U they've showed that there are easements and that there will be easements. So uh I'll await that further uh testimony if there is any further testimony and then I will also let u our uh land use engineer uh also
opine on uh any issues that he sees with that access uh if if he sees any. >> Yeah, that's right. And and again there's there's no plan for development. Nothing is going to change. It's a status quo in terms of access currently
through the existing easements that we have. But you're right, Eric, our professional engineer, will say something about that. I'm certain, as opposed to >> I'm I'm sorry. I'm gonna have to interrupt to Jim Purcell here, acting land use engineer, since Nathan has teed
this up, and I was waiting I was hoping to wait through through the whole to to have Mr. Bar's testimony be complete. But >> Mr. Purcell, I I was remiss. I should have sworn you and Mr. Foot in originally, which I will do now. And Taylor, >> we were sworn in last time, but
>> I know you were, but we'll swear you again. And Taylor, you're somewhere, so you would uh we'll swear you in as well. Do you all swear from your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful. >> I do. I do. >> Thank you. um our as as the land use engineer for
uh Princeton, our concern, my concern and and I think all of uh the land use team's concern is not the current uses and the current, you know, all of this testimony says, well, we're going to be doing this and this and this, but there
is the possibility of this property being sold. And so our concern is what is the [clears throat] uh status of these easements in perpetuity in the event that say the Sacred Heart
School decides to sell off their property and it gets developed as a multifamily home development as is um as could be done. So, um, we would like to hear testimony as to how, uh, these
easements will remain in perpetuity and how any future owners of these properties would be able to utilize, uh, and have access to either Great Road or Drake's Corner Road. And that really is the thrust of our memorandums. Thank
you. That's all. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I think that's for a future application for someone who is going to develop that property um and not before the board currently. But um yeah, understand understood. >> I I'm sorry, Mr. Casey. I don't want to
debate this, but we deal with this all the time in Princeton where the zoning board has allowed for landlock lots. And we're in the situation now where owners of those lots have no recourse to
utilize those lots. And uh we just want to make sure that rights of any future owners are preserved, not not wait until an application from a future owner comes in and say, "Well, how are you going to how are you going
to acquire the rights that you need in order to make this property usable?" That's that's our concern. >> I think you I think you're right, Jim, and it's very important to this application. Um, okay. Um, Mr. Bar, there is on this plan that
is A2. Let's get back on track. Um, there is an area here in the middle that's gray. Can you talk to us about that? It says proposed easement for use of existing lawn area. >> What [clears throat] does that mean? >> Sure. And maybe just before responding
to that, just to complete the record, going back to Mr. Foot's last question to me about the shared use of the manor house. I also want to mention that um there would be a a a library with books related to environmental education as
well as a a natural history museum um that is being [snorts] created by the students at Princeton Academy through a shared uh or a joint uh forest program that um Woods and Wayside International and and Princeton Academy are currently
implementing. Um so to your current question, um the area that you designated um in our discussions with Princeton Academy, um about purchasing the uh the uh
proposed uh subdivided lot with the manor house. Uh Princeton Academy requested um to have an access easement to that gray area. Um it's currently
a lawn area where during recess hours uh uh students um use it uh for playing games, running around and so forth. Um, and so what's envisioned there is that the Woods and Wayside and purchasing
the Manor House lot would agree to provide an access easement to Princeton Academy that would run for the duration of Princeton Academyy's institutional lifetime. It would not carry forward to any future user. Um, I think the
question came up in Mr. foot's letter, you know, questioning why would there be an easement as opposed to um the lot line being drawn around that. Uh and the rationale there is that as
we've stated from the outset uh part of Woods and Wayside's intention in purchasing the property uh from Princeton Academy is to put it under conservation need of conservation restriction and um
uh we're able to do that um with an easement on it but uh uh that's part of part of the the plan that that we've discussed from in the beginning with Princeton Academy. >> Thank you. >> Um, also in the back of the property top
left, I'll say it says proposed easement for maintenance and access. So, currently what is what is housed back there right now? So currently uh there is a cottage and I think three garage spaces. I believe
that was originally constructed when the manor house was constructed in 193031. That was the chauffeur's cottage and um that is where Princeton Academyy's current head of school uh lives.
Uh the parking area in front of it is uh I believe often used by Princeton Academy to park their snow plow and their lawnmowing equipment and uh you know the salt for keeping the roadways open and so forth.
>> Great. >> All right. Um is there anything else you would like to add, Mr. Bar? >> I'm happy to respond to any questions. Any questions for Christopher Bar? He'll be here all night.
>> Not right now, but [clears throat] we are going to ask questions as the presentation concluded. So, >> great. Um, if I may, we did receive an email from Mr. Bar at 4:00 this afternoon with those conservation
easements um as an as attachments. We have not had the opportunity to review them. Um, but they they do seem I I I've glanced through them and I they do seem to be in order for the conservation purposes.
>> And my apologies for not getting those to you any sooner. It was in re-reviewing the uh the letters in preparation for tonight's meeting that um I realized that I hadn't yet sent those uh to you. So, um, you do
>> uh, Mr. uh, Mr. Cohen, I did have a few questions for, uh, for Mr. Bar, but I can hold off if, uh, your preference is to wait until the end of the presentation. >> I'm comfortable asking now. You can ask them now. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Um so you
noted that it was going to be um so it in terms of the uses I just wanted to uh clarify about the um number of employees uh first of all uh that are going to be there on a consistent basis if any and
secondly about the you know events that would take place. How many people are usually ex would be expected uh to attend those types of events? What kind of parking is needed uh for those uh kind of events? Right. So in terms of number of employees, I think that's
something that would um develop over time. Um uh uh as I mentioned uh the forest and climate training initiative is a network of partners and we would envision um there being you know shared
use with with these partners of the office space. Um I think probably at most we would be looking at you know 18 uh people at a time you know using the offices on a daily basis.
>> Um as for events they would range from small meetings with a handful of people to occasional uh larger events um which would make use of a property that can that can support larger events. Um, as I
mentioned, we've had several events over the past year. Um, some have been, you know, day long or two-day seminars. We've had Princeton anthropology department held a dayong retreat there
and I think they had 30 people. Um, we had a we hosted an event for a group of uh about 40 Brazilian scientists who were working out a methodology for producing the first three-dimensional map of the entire Amazon basin.
>> Um, we had a book launching event for Jonathan Kingden, the world's leading authority on African mammals, and I think we had 110 people. Um, and all of that was very manageable with this with this u facility. And that was at
>> Oh, sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> No, I was just gonna ask. So, that was at the manor house that those events took place? >> Each of them was at the manor house. >> Okay. And and how how did parking work for those um for those events? >> Um so,
where we had groups of people for for instance, they were coming from um downtown Princeton. Um and uh each of those events they rented a bus and you know sort of came as a group and got dropped off uh and the bus
came back later and we coordinated with Princeton Academy around school drop off and pickup time so there wasn't a a conflict there. Um the one larger event was a um an evening event and so um with
the permission of Princeton Academy, we were able to use the um parking spaces not just on the proposed manor house lot, but both in front and around the back of Princeton Academy. Um we had uh student volunteers that were directing
the cars. Um and we really didn't have any problem. Okay. Uh, that's, uh, oh, I guess the the last question, actually, two more questions. First of all, um, having the cursor up there reminded me of it. You you
testified as to what that building and that, um, maintenance and access area is used for currently. Is that still going to be used for the same purposes that you noted? >> Yes. At least while >> at least while Princeton Academy is still um, you know, for its
institutional existence. Um yes it would be and uh you know we would be uh providing residential continued residential space for the head of school as long as she's
the head of school to live there. Um I I believe that we had agreed on a a two-year timeline uh for that but that can be extended pending further further discussion. you know, the parking area for the snowplow and the lawnmowing equipment, you know, that's that's the
the best use of that space. >> All right. Thank you. And then the last question I had for now was just going to be about the public access. Uh, obviously a big part of this is that it's going to be conser conserved. Uh there's going to be some kind of public
access and I just want to clarify what that public access looks like. Are people allowed to park on the site and access it that way? and access the open space to the west uh that way or is it strictly walking walking through the
site to get to those um to that western area? >> Right. So that that's a great question and that's certainly a core part of our interest in in this um uh in this manor house property. Um to go back to our
earlier discussion, uh through Ridge View Conservancy, we purchased the 3acre lot on Drake's Corner, lot 4.05, as well as a contiguous 6acre conservation easement that runs up just west of the access road um going up to the back of
the property. And um you know, as as we've indicated, those two parcels are already um under deeds of conservation restriction and public access. And so we um have already put in a small parking
area right around where the cursor is um just north of the uh the fire uh pump. Uh I guess it's just south of the the fire pump station or the fire pump access there. Yeah, it's right about where the cursor is. And um I believe
that holds that is capable of holding four or five cars. Um and uh it's an impervious surface. I sorry, not it's it's not an impervious surface. It's it hasn't been paved. Um, but from there,
uh, there's a trail head that would lead up to, uh, the northwest corner of the property and, uh, a trail head that goes into the trails. And as I mentioned, the trails go all the way out to Promised Line
Road. And so that, you know, it the 153 acre wood and the two properties adjacent to it that Princeton Municipality recently conserved no longer only accessible from Province Line Road. There's also an eastern access point here. What our
um hope and intention is in purchasing a parcel with the manor house lot and the land surrounding it would be um we'll need to raise some additional funds to do this, but would be to put deeds of conservation restriction on the additional land
um and public a a public access trail that would go all the way out to the great road. um and potentially onto lot 4.02 that Bob was showing earlier. Um uh we do not currently envision putting
in a new parking area. Um the parking area on Drake's Corner Road would be able to access any of those trails. And then it raises a larger question about eventually when the sidewalk along the Great Road is completed. and we hope we
can partner with the town to see that happen at some point in the foreseeable future. It would allow um anybody in the community from downtown to walk up the great road and if there were a a safe crosswalk than to access
these trails that would cross what is currently Princeton Academyy's property and and get out to the 187 acres and out to Promised Line Road and points beyond. So that's the larger vision. >> Excellent. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, let's continue. >> Great. Thank you, Chris. Um, I'd like to call Carlos Rodriguez, please. >> I'm here. >> Mr. Rodriguez, do you swear or affirm
your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Rodriguez. Um, if you could could you give us a little bit about your your educational background, please, sir. >> Sure thing. >> So, I have a masters in city and
regional planning from Rutgers University where from the Blast School where I also taught for many years. I've been a professional planner in New Jersey for over 30 years.
Uh I'm a past president of the American Planning Association New Jersey chapter. I'm a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Certified Planners. >> We will accept you as an expert in your field.
>> I'm also [laughter] >> I'm also a past chair of the Princeton Township Zoning Board of Adjustment. >> Right. You had a great lawyer who was on that board. >> Oh, excellent. >> One of the best. >> One of the best. We got a long swimming list.
[laughter] >> Um, okay. Um, if you could just I think it's important to understand, you know, the history of this this parcel in particular. If you could walk us through maybe a little bit of the history of the RAB.
Um, that would be great. >> We'll do. So, um, the RA and the RB zoning, uh, were adopted by the township, the former township in 1996,
if I'm not mistaken, prior to consolidation. At that time, the town officials were concerned about conventional suburban residential development in the area
generally known as the Princeton Ridge. which was known to have unique geological qualities and geomorphic qualities. The town didn't believe that conventional suburban residential development on lots of let's say an acre
or 1.5 acres which is a typical subdivision template that had been applied to most of the lands in the former township was appropriate for the lands in the Princeton Ridge. And as a result, the
town sought to down essentially downzone that area by increasing the required minimum lot size. However, there were concerns that property owners would challenge the legality of the downzoning
and to avoid legal challenges, the town sought to justify the downzoning on the basis of the unique geomorphic features of the Princeton Ridge. Other towns in New Jersey, for example, Hopewell Township, had been successful in
upholding down zonings in the courts on the basic on the basis of scientific studies of an area's natural features that directly linked their geomorphic characteristics to requirements for enhanced lot sizes. The general
principle was that the underlying natural features should determine what is commonly called the carrying capacity, i.e. the minimum lot size rather than some abstract zoning template.
To that effect, the town hired a well-known Philadelphia planning and landscape architecture firm, Wallace Roberts and Todd, to undertake a detailed study of the underlying natural features of the area.
And the overlay maps prepared by the consultant are actually referenced in the zoning language of section 10B-256.1 of the township code. which are the special provisions relating to the RA and RB zone and are
supposed to be on file with the township engineers office. I don't know if they still are. Maybe. Anyway, following this study, the town adopted this new RA and RB zoning districts.
uh the limits to these districts unlike most other zoning uh district uh boundaries which follow property lines or or street rightways. They're not they don't follow any of that.
They were derived from the WRT study of the underlying soil and geologic conditions which explains why they're wiggly. they're sort of all over the place. Um, and the reasoning was adopted and to
my knowledge it was either not successfully challenged or was sustained in court. I don't know. I don't know. But that explains this uh unique zoning uh that affects this this property which isn't actually in
both RA and RB zones. Right? So the RA and RB zoning only allows single family detached housing with farming as the principal permitted uses in the districts both districts.
It allows conditional uses including and I can read this list to you um but maybe we'll skip that. Um but one of one of the conditional uses
is public schools and private nonprofit schools. It also includes child care centers, nursery schools, and places of worship and cemeteries. Now, conditional uses are authorized in
a district if they are able to satisfy all the stated conditions. If the zoning lacks a list of conditions which the conditional use is required to satisfy, it can be argued that the conditional use
should be viewed actually as a permitted use subject only to the conditions required of every other permitted use in the district. And I could read to you case law on this, but I'm not going to. Just take my
word for it. Um there is zoning elsewhere in the township uh in a completely different place where existing structures
may be used for the following uses. offices, meetings, educational seminars, classrooms, environmental display areas, and other community activities related to environmental education, land
preservation, and education purposes. And these are the very uses which the applicant proposes for the existing manor house. [snorts] And just so that that's that conditional use, I'll call it an overlay or a carveout just for
perspective here, was really intended and this is Derek Bridger and it might have been Mr. Purcell educating me on this was that the history of that was for the DNR greenway area on Rosedale
Road, right? because all that area in there was was carved out and and this was a permitted conditional use for that specific spot. >> I I didn't know that, but that makes perfect sense. Yes. >> Yeah. I I only mentioned that because
when I was going through all this and learning it, right, I stumbled on that because it's in the conditional uses and I said, "Hey, wait a minute. This is this eerily is >> exactly what we're looking for, >> right? Exactly what we're looking for this evening in terms of use would be in
the and the en environmental education land preservation and educational uses that are permitted in section 10B-272.69 which are the bulk requirements for that. So carry on. If I may, um, I'm sure it was Derek that
pointed that out, but for the benefit of the board members, I believe you're talking about the Greenway Meadows and the Johnson Education Center, not the public school center, which is very similar to this where the the green the
DNR Greenway um, provides conservation uh, education services at the Johnson Education Center in the Greenway Meadows property. just >> and I believe they have offices in there as well. >> And they do. Yes, they this is ex this
is almost identical to that. So, um yeah, Bob, I just wanted to make sure the board knew what you were talking about. >> Thank you. Because I butchered >> that. That's absolutely right. And unfortunately, that's not the zone the zoning district we're in. So, so thus
we're in front of the zoning board. Anyway, um, back to the application. So, in 199, so this property has a lot of history, which I'm not going to get into. Um,
but in 1999, the Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart applied to the applied to the Township zoning board for an interpretation of the continuing nonconforming use
ordinance, which is section one, it's section 10B-329 of the former township's land use ordinance as it applied to the use of a former monastery, the former monastery in a separate building known as the manor
house on what would be the Princeton Academy, the Sacred Heart property. Now this ordinance provision reads in any non-conforming structure or use may be continued upon the land or in the
structure so occupied or used in any non-conforming structure may be restored or repaired in the event of partial destruction thereof. But no such structure or use which is abandoned shall be reinstated.
Cessation of a use for a continuous period of one year shall create a rebuttable presumption that such use has been abandoned. The memorializing resolution that the board adopted at the time
describes some of the property's background, the convent building. And this memorializing resolution, by the way, was attached to uh Derek's uh zoning memo. The convent
building was built in 1960 as a school for nviciates. It was subsequently used for a variety of schools, the Princeton Monasuri, a Jordan Day School, and lately the
Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart. The board's memorializing res resolution granted the convent building status as a protected nonconforming school within the footprint of the convent structure.
The resolution does not address the manor house. It's my assumption that the manor house was viewed as an ancillary structure associated with the functions of the main building, the convent.
In other words, I believe the manor house was viewed as an accessory use to the convent. Now, the current application doesn't interfere in any way with the continued educational use of the convent structure.
However, as you've heard, the use of the manor house would change. The school has over the years made the manor house available for outside activities such as weddings, bar mitzvah,
graduation parties, and so forth. And in good weather, the school has also made available the grounds in front of the manor house as overflow space for outdoor events. As you've already heard, the current proposal is to use the manor house for
educational activities unrelated to the school although not completely unrelated such as small conferences, lectures, retreats and so forth. And the main f focus of these activities is
environmental education. So, let's get to the nature of the relief requested. And I'm referring here to Derek's review memo from March 25th, 2025, which identified the relief requested
um specifically a variety of bulk or C variances for lot frontage and building and parking setbacks. Now I note that these are pre-existing conditions which the applicant is unable to address for obvious reasons
but the application I would also note does not increase the degree of nonconformity in any way. The Derek's memo indicates that the application also requires three other
forms of relief. Another C variance for imperous coverage on the school convent lot, a D4 use variance for floor area ratio, and a separate D or use variance for the
manorhouse lot. The impervious coverage variance for the school/convent lot is a pre-existing condition. No new impervious coverage is proposed anywhere on the property.
So this is really an artificial variance for which which is brought about because of the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision reduces the amount of land that is used
to calculate the floor area ratio um and therefore triggers the need for the variance. um but it's not increasing the amount of imperous coverage in any way, shape or
form. So it's really a technicality. Um the floor so the floor area ratio again is a pre-existing condition as no new floor area is proposed. Um,
I might also add that the bulk standards in the zoning that were adopted for the RA and RB districts were tailored for the primary permitted use, which is detached single family housing.
So, it's meaningless to try to impose those bulk standards on either the convent building or the manor house. it's they're never going to be able to conform. So, finally, the zoning officer's memo
identifies the need for a T1 use variance for the Manor House lot because the Manor House lot will no longer be associated with the school or at least not 100% associated. It can no longer legitimately be considered as an
accessory structure or an accessory used to the school. It in effect becomes a principal use on its own lot. But the practical implications of this are limited. [snorts]
The manor house will for the most part no longer be available for the school to rent out for non-school related activities and instead the manor house will be primarily used by the applicant to
promote the organization's mission. So those are that's the relief that is being requested as part of this application. Now, let's turn to the master plan and
how the master plan might view this. The 2023 Princeton master plan under land use goals, page 19 lists number six, protect and restore
environmentally sensitive features and natural resources. The current application promotes this goal. No new construction or disturbance is proposed on a site that has been occupied for already many years and
instead the applicant is proposing to apply a model of stewardship to the site in effect reversing the dilletterious impacts of invasive species and over time creating a more healthy and self-
sustaining landscape. So to my mind this application clearly supports this land use goal in the master plan. Uh the master plan also mentions under community facilities goals which is on
page 22 a series of goals that are relevant to this application. Goal number 40 provide highquality municipal educational and cultural facilities to meet the needs of Princeton residents.
Goal number 45, integrate green technology and sustainable design into municipal and school facilities to the greatest degree feasible. Goal 54, remove and replace non-native plantings.
Goal 55, manage nuisance and invasive species. Goal 59, foster stewardship and management of already preserved lands and natural resources. And then under open space and conservation goals, which is on page 23,
goal 67, reduce the threats to natural landscapes from pests, disease, and non-native invasive species. Our master plan has a lot of goals, many um
the proposed application, I think, clearly advances all of these goals that I mentioned. And so my conclusion is that the application is largely consistent with the master plan and certainly does no
damage to it. The master plan's land use recommendation for education mentions the need to evaluate existing schools and educational facilities for appropriate zoning.
Had this recommendation been acted upon, we would probably not be here tonight. The master plan in a section titled recommended zoning boundary and regulations, which is on page 48, also specifically addresses the RA and
RB districts, and recommends that the two districts be consolidated. In other words, the master plan doesn't recognize the need for a distinction between these two districts anymore. And then finally under conservation, open space and recreation
which is on page 169, the master plan reads, "Preserve significant contiguous woodland resources through amendments to zoning requirements and maximize contextual planting and
native and adaptive species. So in my in my mind the proposed application appears to be in complete sync with the master plan and completely consistent with that document.
Now are there any ad adverse impacts to the zoning framework? As I mentioned, the RARB zoning is a product of its time and for all intents and purposes has outlived its usefulness.
As I mentioned previously, the master plan recommends collapsing the two districts into one. But in any event, the proposed application, which makes no changes to the built footprint on the site, appears
to me to coexist very comfortably with the intent and purpose of the RA and RB districts. And so I don't see any adverse impacts whatsoever to the zoning framework from this application.
Um, are there any adverse impacts to the neighborhood? I think it's apparent that the application will have no adverse impacts on the neighborhood. It is unlikely that the neighbors will even notice any change.
uh and the creation of a public access trail through the property connecting to a larger uh open spa preserved open space network will be an amenity that certainly the neighbors will enjoy
as they will the enhanced environmental stewardship of the property. So with respect to the proofs, I would argue that the site is particularly suitable in that it can be repurposed for the
proposed uses without any change other than the new law. I would also argue that the application materially advances certain purposes of zoning
as listed in the municipal land use law. Specifically, purposes A, I, and J. Purpose A is to guide the appropriate use of or development of all lands in this state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety,
morals, and general welfare. That's a high bar, but nothing, I would hope you would would agree, nothing in this application would compromise any of those desirable outcomes. and uh the trails themselves, the the
the the the access to these this trail system leading to a larger preserved open space network uh can be an important component of a public health strategy.
Then purpose E or I I'm sorry is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design. In this case the desirable visual environment already
exists. The manor house is is a jewel. It's an absolute architectural gem. So this application is preserving it, not creating it, but it's not threatening it in any in any way, shape
or form. And finally, purpose J is to propo to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts and to prevent urban sprawl. While the property has not been officially recognized as historic,
there is no question that it has considerable historic interest and the application preserves and promotes that and will bring it to the attention of a wider public. And I think having the Woods and Wayside nonprofit
in charge of the manor house is likely to help with any issues of continued deferred maintenance that might, you know, trouble that historic building. So
we're definitely address addressing that purpose. So um as I see it, this application se addresses and satisfies both the positive criteria and the negative
criteria. Uh Mr. Casey, is there anything else you'd like me to cover? >> No, I think you did a great job. I I love the history piece of it as well. I think it's important to understand that and and and where this all came from. So
thank you, uh Mr. Rodriguez, >> I'm happy to answer any questions from the board. >> Board members, >> just for clarification, >> and I and I forgive me, Mr. Rodriguez, but I thought I heard you say that you
don't really think an impervious coverage variance or F variance is needed. Did I hear that correctly from you or >> No. Okay. >> The variances are real.
Uh but they're they're triggered by the subdivision. Uh and I didn't run the numbers, but if you recall earlier there were there was this a discussion of the two lots that
had previously been subdivided. I don't know if you were to count those lots as being still there. Whether those variances would be triggered or not, I don't know. It doesn't matter. But the point of the fact is nothing in this
application other than the subdivision is causing those variances to be triggered. So in a sense there it's a it's sort of a it's a technicality and it's it's it's unrelated to the
reality on the ground uh because the applicant isn't proposing to increase the impervious surface. It's just that the [laughter] the the uh the fraction uh that's used to calculate the the
imperous coverage is changing because the the the site is being subdivided and now it's smaller and so the same amount of imperous coverage is triggering the need for the the variance. The variance
is real. It's just that it's not being caused by anything that the the applicant is proposing to do. >> It's just a high It's just a higher percentage based on a reduction in land. >> Exactly. Right. >> Anyone else? Or we can also ask
questions at the end as well like Mr. Cohen suggested. >> Do that. We can do that at the end. >> Yep. >> Board members, do you have any other questions of uh Mr. Rodriguez? Okay, let's keep going. >> All right, I'd like to call Eric Rupner,
please. >> Sir, could you spell your name for the record? Wherever he I don't see him on my screen yet, but >> he's there. >> Over here. >> There you are. Okay. So, I'll just
>> Mr. Casey, do you need the um the screen up? If not, can you take it down? >> Um, he's going to be talking about it, but I certainly Oh, my sharing of it. >> That's fine. >> Oh, I got you. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. Mr. Reparian, do you swear
from your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Eric, if you could uh for the board, could you give us a little bit about of your um experience and educational background, please, as a professional engineer? >> Certainly. I am a licensed professional
engineer in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. I've been licensed in New Jersey since 2003. I graduated from Villanova University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 2000 in 1997. In 2001, I received a master's from the same
university also in civil engineering. Since graduating in 97, I've practiced land development throughout New Jersey. Um, I've appeared in front of this board and numerous other boards throughout New Jersey. >> I would offer Mr. Group Narrain as an
expert professional engineer, please. >> We'll accept that. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> All right, Eric. Um, so you're familiar with this site as you were the the engineer and master of the first
subdivision plan that we had uh back maybe three years ago, two 24 or thereabouts. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> correct. >> I have up here on my screen um your subdivision. Could you just and
you tell me if you want to share your screen if it's better or or what, but I'd like you to walk us through this subdivision map if you would, sir. >> Okay, certainly. Um, if I could share my screen, it'll be easier for me to navigate through.
>> Yep. I'll get out. >> Okay. Okay. So, the original track which is locked. >> If I could just one minute. Uh, Miss Casey, is this is this still the same map though, Eric? Is it 112525? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, this can still stay A2.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. Proceed. So the original lot was approximately 35.35 acres and was identified as lot 4.01 as part of the prior subdivision. Um what the applicant is proposing to do
is to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. Um the school lot which will be approximately 12.4 acres. um that's located along this northerly section of the property and then the manor house lot which is located to the west and
also to the south of the school lot. The manora house lot, excuse me. The mana house lot is approximately. N it's approximately 22 acres. A little over 22 acres. Um
right presently access to the property to the school property and all of the improvements are provided via two driveway. The existing driveway to Great Road. This is approximately 20 ft wide paved driveway and it provides two-way traffic into and out of the property. Um
that driveway is not being proposed to be modified in any way, shape or form as a result of its application. The way the driveway currently exists, the driveway will ultimately remain the same. The second point of ingress egress is
an another paved driveway that only connects to Drake's Corner Road and that is this driveway here. This driveway provides access to the pump station that currently services the school property. Additionally, there are
several utilities that extends through the manor house lot or the proposed manor house lot that provides service to the school property. And then similarly there are additional utilities that extends
through the access or the frontage to great road that also provides service to the manora house lot. Presently there are 70 striped parking spaces within the paved area. Um there's a gravel parking area that's located at
the northerly side of the school property. But this gravel parking area approximately where my corourser is, that gravel area is not striped. The striped parking areas that are located on site within the pavement are located throughout the property and also around
the school property. Um along the northerly side of the school, there's a series of parking spaces that's located along the northerly side of the manor house. Again, this is the Manor House property or the Manor House building.
Um, there are parking spaces that are located along the north and then also along the east of the Manor House property. The remainder of the parking spaces on site are located to the south approximately here and here on the
school lot. And then additionally, there additional paved parking that's located to the east of the school property. Of the 70 parking spaces after the subdivision, approximately 51 21 parking spaces
will be located on the manor house property. Um those parking spaces consist of the parking lot that's located here and then also the parking lot that's located to the east of the manor house. The remaining 49 parking
spaces will stay with the manor house, excuse me, with the school with the school lot. Again, the applicant is not proposing any changes, any additional construction, any new improvements. The property as it exists today will remain
the same if the board approves the subdivision. Additionally, the area to the north west of the school and north of the manor house, this striped area here presently, this is where all of the dumpsters that
currently service the entire property is located. And the current proposal will leave the dumpster at the same location. And And the final aspect of the applicant's proposal if approved by the board would
be the creation of this new area easement within the lands within the lawn area. And the purpose of that loan area previously is to allow continuous use or continued use of that area by school students.
Essentially, that is the applicant's proposal for the subdivision. Again, we are not proposing any new construction, any additional impervious surface on the property. Everything as it is today will remain the same after the subdivision if
it's approved by the board. Um, we're not anticipating any changes whatsoever to to the site as it currently exists. Eric, um, we heard from the municipal engineer last last time about the first subdivision and um the the corner
markers from that subdivision. Have they have they been installed from the first subdivision? >> Yes. So, as of um Monday of this week, uh Janu all of the property corners as required by the original subdivision have been installed and the appropriate
certification will certainly be provided to the board and to the town's engineer. >> Thank you. Um if you could just quickly talk about how we came up with the the lot line that we're that we're requesting here. Um it seems maybe
self-evident but was there anything sophisticated behind the thinking? >> So the the thought pattern behind a lot the irregularly shaped lot line was to follow the natural improvements the way they're constructed on the property. Um about the only location where we
somewhat comply with the ordinance is this section of the proposed lot line where it's perpendicular or the proposed lot line is perpendicular to the existing property line. The remainder of the lot line, as the board can see, attempts to follow some of the improvements that currently exist. So,
for instance, the lot line is angular in order to keep the parking lot on the school's property and then the lot line comes through the parking area and then it attempts to follow
the improvements access to this parking area. We have one of this building number two which is used by the school. There are outside improvements that we're attempting to keep on the school's property. And then similarly as we move around and along the lot line, it starts
to follow the existing parking area that we anticipate the manor house property will use and that will be shared with the school. And again, as we move further through the property, we're attempting to follow all of the existing physical parking and
other infrastructure that exists. And then finally, as we move towards the south or the proposed southerntherly lot line, again, we're following the existing paved driveway, which is located here. And then the property line follows her
around the existing pave parking area. And then ultimately ultimately to close the boundary of the proposed schoolhouse lot, the property line extends and crosses the proposed driveway and intersects the existing
property line approximately here. So the intent was to provide as much of the existing improvements within the lot that's ultimately going to be used by the school and then all of the remaining properties would be on the manor house lot. Most of the
improvements are on the school's property. The majority of the open space or on improved portions of the property will be located on the manor house track. >> Gotcha. And the black dots are going to be pins that are going to be set. Correct. >> Correct. All of the property corners as
recommended in the in the professionals review memo. All of the property corners will be set. >> So the entire subdivided piece that the school will have will be landlocked. >> Correct. With the
>> covered by covered by access easements and things like that. >> Correct. Other than the pins that you're going to place it uh at the nodes, you're not going to have any improvements there. There's no fencing or anything like that.
>> Correct. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Yes. >> Eric, can you speak a little bit about the proposed easement areas? And um I'm not sure if you can speak to the
conservation easement area um particularly the 6acre area on the western side of the property. Um uh are they going to be um delineated by meats and bounds and
will they be also monumented? Um I don't believe we've actually on our side of the table discussed how the easements whether it's potentially a blanket easement across the property since we have access easement utility easements. Um there's san existing
sanitary sewer easement. There are numerous utilities that are located throughout the property. Um, uh, we haven't really gotten to that point where we decided if it's going to be a blanket easement to permit all of the existing infrastructures to remain in their current form and to permit
maintenance and replacement as necessary or to physically delineate them. Um, I would certainly defer to Mr. Casey. If that's the direction that we're going to go, then we can certainly delineate easements on the plans. And well, as as you saw in my
memo, my primary concern is about the utility easements that are not even shown on this plan for several [clears throat] of the utilities that serve the school. Um, but the the primary easement that I am concerned about is the 6 acre conservation
easement that Mr. Bar testified to and that I have not seen a meets and bounds description of that. nor have I seen a meets and meets and bounds description of the proposed easement for for use of existing lawn area. Um, you know, how do
we know what the limits of those easements are if they're not recorded on uh either this plan or in a deed uh of easement? I did get a chance while we were discussing this to review the conservation easement for the 6 acres. I
did not see a meets and bounds description. >> So, Mr. PCEL, are you going to be able to I won't say approve, but recommend approval of this application
without having these in place that you can review and and uh >> Oh, I don't see why they couldn't be conditions. Um, >> right. Good. I feel >> I mean from from an overall standpoint though, if I may, um, I you know, as I
said earlier, our concern is about future use, not current use. And Mr. Bar testified also that they're planning uh on placing a conservation easement on the rest of the property that will be lot 4.06.
That will pre preclude sale of the school property to a future owner that may want to convert it to a residential development, which is the
allowable use in this area. And a conservation easement that follows the wording that's in the current conservation easement for the 6 acres um would preclude the ability for a future
developer of the school property to construct a road to serve those properties or a driveway or expand the driveway. >> They would have to use what currently comes off of the corner of Drake's Corner and Great Road. >> Yeah. the one that that they would have
to continue to use the existing because the conservation easement that currently is for the 6 acres restricts the ability of constructing a roadway except for the use of educational conservation. So, um
I'm just envisioning 20, 30, 40 years in the future when this property is no longer a school and it gets sold and it it won't be salailable because they will not they will have a conservation
easement in perpetuity that restricts its ability to have access to a public road. Um the conservation easement for the 6 acres is is an easement to the county
and the county would have to um have to agree to abregate that uh easement for some future use. That's that's my biggest concern about this over >> that would h if that were to happen that
would happen whenever some another user came before somebody some either the planning board or the zoning board at some point in the future to propose development of the school property.
>> Correct. and and and also uh you know from the perspective of the school itself uh if they were to decide to sell this property um the highest and best use would be residential and if it is not able to be developed as
residential um they are they are restricting themselves by subdividing this this land. So, um, just just trying to put it all out there so everybody understands our concerns from the municipality standpoint as to what happens with a
landlocked parcel such as this, particularly when conservation easements are placed on it that restrict future use. >> Yeah, if I may, I >> Great point. Um, I think what's what's
different here is that the proposed subdivision now will will have an access easement from Great Road to what I'll call the school lot. Right. So, and there's no conservation on that proposed
parcel yet. Right. So, and and I I I'd have to go back and check the recordings, frankly, and I can you can obviously make this a condition of the approval, which I which I which I do understand, is that there's an existing and I I believe there's an existing
access easement, driveway easement from Great Road to the campus now to ac across what what will be preserved in the future, right, to the school proper.
So, if any future owner or purchaser of what I'll call the school lot would have that access from Great Road to that parcel >> use of that roadway or some roadway.
>> No, that road. Well, so that the main I'll call the main entrance to the school. >> The main entrance. I I don't have my I'm not sharing my >> I'll stop my my map. >> No, I I I understand I I understand what Mr. Casey's trying to say is that any
future owner would continue to have the access rights as long as they're using that existing roadway driveway essentially. keeping in mind that that is
I won't say it's narrow but it's not it's not anything that might be useful to a sub a subdivided multifamily development >> correct it may it may not and I I we
haven't looked at it this way nobody's prop proposed it may not conform to RSIS for a future residential development Um, >> quite frankly, is that our problem right now or is that the applicant's problem
right now? >> Just just just laying it out there so that the board the zoning board has all of the um facts and concerns of uh of our uh staff. Um the the current
conservation easement that Mr. Bar just testified they may they [clears throat] may place a conservation easement on this, but the current conservation easement for the six acres on the property says that there you have an ability to construct, maintain, improve,
replace, or repair roadways, bridges, paths, and trails, fences, styles, interpretive and directional signs, and related and associated structures necessary for the public's recreation and conservation use, access, and convenience.
provided that following completion of same the grtor provides notice to the grantee. Now the grtor is um the grantee is Mercer County, the grtor is Ridge View Conservancy
and that does not say that you could use you could construct, maintain, improve, replace or repair a roadway for the purpose of residential um development. That's my only concern >> or whatever might be developed there. But again,
>> or whatever might be Yes. Whatever use, but the current the current zoning allows residential um development, >> but not the minimum. I think you're exactly right, but it would be incumbent
upon the uh the uh the school, >> correct? >> To make that determination what they want to do now. um as opposed to waiting till some point at which it may be possibly subdivided.
>> I that's why I mentioned that it actually restricts the school's ability for a future sale of the property. >> Right. You're right. >> I I think the neighbors that might be here are are probably in favor of that. But what Mr. Purcell is referencing with
the six acres is off of Drake's corner and this back corner over here if you can see my cursor. Right. So that's here is the conservation ement that that he's speaking of. >> What I'm talking about is access from Great Road over here.
>> This is the main drive >> for access back here. Okay. So currently this area except for these six acres is not encumbered by a conservation easement. So the school and
Woods and Wayside are going to and I have to check. I think there's one that's already been recorded and I will circle back with Mr. Purcell gladly for access across this parcel on the existing driveway to this school. So, any future development could have access
to Great Road through this driveway easement to back here. But you're right, it's a it's it's a future concern for someone. Um, but it's not completely landlocked. It has access to Great Road.
>> Has access to Great Road. Yeah. >> And and I'll just repeat what I said that I hadn't heard until tonight with Mr. Bar's testimony that he said that they hope to do a future conservation easement on the remainder of the land
once they they uh once this subdivision takes place. That is my concern. Thank you. >> And that conservation easement would be the school property as well. >> No, just the just what we're calling the
manor lot property. just a manual on property. And so the the school property including the access to the great road would not be included in that. >> Right. What we're going to have to do is >> not what was testified to. That's that's the concern. Mr. Bar testified that the
remainder of the lot 4.06 to be created may be placed under a conservation easement. If the conservation easement language in the 6 acre portion is the same language used for the rest of the lot of the lot, there is a
restriction on the ability to construct a road for any purposes other than those environmental purposes. It just is is it's a nuance that needs to be
um brought to daylight. That's all. road is any change in the existing roadway that currently exists. >> Yes, that is that is the way I'm reading it. I'm not an attorney, but I'm the land use engineer and it looks like it
would restrict the ability to expand that driveway to serve that property in the future for any use that may require a an expansion. That would truly be up to the applicant. >> Yes.
>> If they if they want to do that, you've made it perfectly clear to them. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh I I'm going to make a suggestion. I don't know uh if Mr. Casey intended to
do this, but the engineering and zoning report has a number of staff comments. >> Yes. uh and uh they would appear to be in the uh within the purview of your engineer,
Mr. Casey. So, uh I'm [clears throat] going to ask that he goes through it. Uh that would greatly facilitate the preparation of any resolution in the future. So, >> 100%. I took the words right out of my mouth. >> Great.
Um, Eric, let's you and I walk through um the engineering and zoning report if we could. >> Okay, >> we go to page two. Staff comments. The applicant notes that a waiver is also being requested from
checklist item A5, completed checklist, but this is a typographic area error meant to mean A4, so that's nothing to do there. um applicant provides explanations for these waivers and could you talk a
little bit Eric on those on our waiver requests that we had that we submitted >> there >> yeah certainly so uh the waivers requested um first one is a fire protection plan um again the applicant
is not proposing any improvements uh the typical fire protection plans um part of what we did in support of the waiver All of the water manes along the frontage of the property along Great Road and also along Drake's Corner Road, those are shown. All of the existing
fire hydrants along the front of frontage of the properties, that's they're also shown on the subdivision plan. Um, again, since we're not adding any improvements, any new buildings or any new structures, we felt it might be appropriate to request a waiver from the
fire protection plan. Um, master plan designations B12. I think you did that. >> Yeah, I think that deals with the bike lane and the bice and the sidewalk areas along I believe it's Drake's Corner
Road. >> That's correct. Um, a waiver from deep slope slope locations that were on the map. Um I believe ours are already shown on the map. So again,
nothing is proposed in terms of construction here or improvements. So we would request a waiver on C4, C8 as well. Right. The the trees we actually have the trees are charted on the second
page of A2. I'm sorry. The third page of A2 has has tree locations and tree masses on it. So, I don't know that a waiver is appropriate because it's on there. Um, locations of streams and ponds. I
don't know that there are any. >> We don't have any on the property. >> Uh, percolation. So, no perk required and soil logs because there's no septics proposed or improvements approve proposed. >> Correct. Correct.
Oh, and he even they even say in our note, I should have said this first, there's no objection to this information not being shown. That's in staff comment two on page two. Um, I'm on to I don't know.
This is a This is about as thick a memo as you're going to get, everybody. I I I think Bob, if you jump to page six, this is where we have staff comments beginning now. >> Page five. Okay. Bulk variances and
building setback. Hold on. Uh uh staff comments at the bottom of page six. A reasonable reasonable determination of the front, rear, and side lot line should be determined. And I think that this was actually raised at round one
by I forget maybe Mr. Foot had talked about um staff recommend that the southerntherly line be considered the front lot line. So do you want to show your map again? Sure. And look at me. Sorry.
>> Okay. So again, the school lot the school lot as proposed is completely landlocked. So the reference to the southernly prop property line would be this proposed lot line that follows along the the parking
area and the driveway. That will be considered the front yard. The rear yard would be the northerly property line which is this property line here. And then the side lot lines would be along the right and then also along the left hand side. So those revisions and the
appropriate setback dimensions can certainly be added to any revised plan. So, we're okay with that. Correct. >> Yep. We're fine with that. >> Okie do. Number two, subdivision plat has been reviewed by municipal's land use survey. Uh, there looked like some some cleanup here, Eric, in number two.
>> Correct. And I reviewed with um the township with the town's surveyor and we could certainly make the revisions that he had suggested to the meets and bounds descriptions in order to get uh the lot lines to close or the new lots to close.
All right, number three. Same thing. Is that something that could be taken care of? >> Yes. >> All right, we'll do that, Karen. >> Um, number four is pins that we did at the
12th hour, literally yesterday. >> Yes. So, all of the >> the previous pins have been set and all of the new property lines, if it's approved, they will also get marked. >> Great. Um, number six says that applicant
should address how the access road and utilities will be considered under this application as no easements have been proposed to allow for the relocation of these elements. So, yeah, I can Mr. PCEL, are you requesting that they
be put on the map or >> I I think it I think it's very important that they be identified on the map. Um particularly uh again I I I look at the future uses um what is the guarantee
that water service for example will come from Drake's Corner Road across essentially someone else's property to serve the school without an easement. >> Right. And I and I think the utility
companies themselves would like to see easements because they they do not prefer they they prefer not to pro cross private property to serve a customer on another private property without having an easement. And none of the utilities
coming off of uh particularly Drake's Corner Road show any easements um uh associated with them. That's what I would like to see. >> Okay. There are some easements that are on the the map now, but I understand what you're saying there. And I think there are other existing easements which
we'll chart. Is that good, Eric? >> Yep. No, we're fine with that. >> I agree. Yeah. I mean, I I'll point I'll point out one very obvious one. Sanitary sewer easement. Um the sanitary sewer for building three on the school lot
crosses through the future lot 4.06, but there is no easement associated with it. So um you know in in a in any scenario the owner of lot 4.06 >> could truncate the sewer lateral
and lot 4 what what is it lot 4.07 that we're propos proposing >> would no longer have access to the sewer. >> So an easement is required for that sanitary sewer. And Eric you just uh
zoomed in on it. So, if you could point at it where I'm talking about, there are existing sanitary sewer easements, but they do not go to the property line. >> So, it's this section here's the proposed property. >> The section that doesn't have the
easement. That's just an example, but you have water, you have electric, um I think you have gas. [clears throat] >> Yep. So, so to be clear, uh, earlier this evening, I guess a question was raised
as to whether the applicant could do a blanket easement. I'd recommend against it. I don't know how Mr. Purcell feels, but I'm assuming from his comments that he would agree it's important to actually show the easements instead of just simply
recording a document that says it it covers >> everything that's there. All right, then. We're in agreement and this is acceptable to the applicant, Mr. Casey. >> Sounds like it. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Great.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. I mean, you're right. I mean, he's Mr. Purcell's right. There's no no denying that. I'm just trying to save my clients a few bucks. That's all. But you're right. Should happen. >> Yes. >> And will happen.
All right. That's uh number six. Um Wanda P. >> Yeah. Then we got the site plan criteria comments and there are some staff comments on that. >> Yeah. On the next page. Right. >> Right. >> Yep.
Um how the condition of the applicant should address how the condition of approval of the prior subdivision is being applied and how the access drive is being utilized. So, I think there was testimony to that
and there's no change there, but there will be and there already is an easement that goes across lot 4.05 off of Drake's Corner Road.
And I would I would say that that that comment has been satisfied. Um that was my comment um by the fact that [clears throat] um the future owner of 4.06 owns lot 4.05
um and has placed the conservation easement on both properties, this 6 acre easement and 4.05 um and that access will continue to uh exist. So I I no longer have a concern about that.
Thank you sir. >> Okay. >> Um this is to reconstruct. So we we can't Oh, let's see what you say there. Um require subdivision applications to reconstruct existing roadways contiguous to the property of the center line of road requirement. So, um, we we actually
had this at our last subdivision application and it was waved, um, simply because there's no construction that's proposed. And this is, I think, more in line with a a development that's going in, if I'm not right, if I'm if I'm not mistaken. >> That's correct. And I think uh, that was
our comment. >> Oh, I didn't read read far enough, but thank you. >> Read read through it and say we agree. Well, when you're I know when you're on the when you're live, you know, I gotta, you know, um but feel free to chime in anytime. >> No, this is this is the same situation
as the prior uh um the the prior subdivision, and we agree that uh no improvements to the public roadways are required. >> All right. Same goes with the next comment. >> I just got to the bottom. It says staff also concurs with this opinion.
>> Correct. Nothing to do there. Should address the existing access from Drake's Corners being used. We've done that. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Um the parking for the entire site is now being divided. Um we gave testimony
as to parking and access as well. and and actually what you know what what does happen and and it is a um it's part of the partnership is that you know Mr. Bar
testified earlier about when there is an event and school is not there that that the manor house is permitted access to use those parking spots that are around the school I will say for use at the manor house. So that's an agreement
between the school and woods and wayside. >> Mr. So are you are you suggesting that there should be cross access easements or simply the reference as Mr. Casey's
indicating that the school and the future owners of the manor house will have an agreement to allow parking. I I think my comment was really related to uh not specifically parking, but
[clears throat] the fact that um that access from Great Road traverses the new school lot in order to access the new manor lot >> and a cross access easement agreement
should be in place, but I don't think that um I I think that's between the two property owners. Yeah. And the same thing with the parking um that's between the two property owners. Any future de any future use of these properties um would
not need to have that kind of a cross access easement I would suspect but that is that is something to deal with in the future. Re regarding the parking Mr. Casey, when you said there's an agreement, is that a written agreement
or is that just >> um I don't, you know, I'm not sure if it's a written agreement at this time, but because this is still pending, but um currently it's an unwritten agreement. I don't think that there's a writing yet, sir. >> Okay. I just wanted to know which one.
>> Thanks. >> Um next one is waste collection. We talked about that. It's not not going to change. Correct. >> Wait, the easements for the utilities crossing.
>> Oh, yeah. We already Yeah, >> we just talked about that. Yeah, we talked about that. They'll take care of that. >> We talked about I'm on the next page now, Karen. Uh 5.0. We talked about one and that we're going to change the front yard to be the
southerntherly lot line. Uh we talked about Eric talking to Mr. Sanduski and making those corrections that Mr. Sanduski had. >> Same with number three. Property corners
have been set for the prior subdivision. Thank God. Um, new pins for this subdivision access and easements and how they work. Mr. PCEL's comments are in number six.
Mercer County Planning Board is required and I'll get you that. I'm going to apply for that next. Um, Pedestrian bicycle improvements. There's
no That's number eight. Um requirements to reconstruct roadways. We talked about that and >> we're not doing anything on that. Easements. Again, easements are everywhere, huh? Geez. Gotta love an
easement. Waste collection. talked about um planning report. >> Yeah, there were a couple of questions in here that Mr. Foot raised. I think uh I don't want to speak for him but I think primarily
one one important point was uh paragraph 7 regarding the uh manor house lodge and then he and he has other comments in which he's asking for some response. >> Um I think most of this was covered. Um,
so starting at number seven, is that what you think? >> I think so. Uh, Nathan, what do you think up till then it sounds as if uh everything's been addressed? >> Yes, everything's been addressed. I'd say most of eight has also been
addressed. Um, but just as a summary, I think that would be good to go over. Um yeah, I think everything after Yeah, starting at 7:00 and then everything after that just if we can summarize anything that's been already been discussed.
>> Yep. They have a contract to purchase the property and their intent is to preserve the lot and this is a contingency of that contract. I think we talked about that in the first goound.
Um, and I I spoke in the this is all as to number seven. In the event that doesn't happen, then we simply have a subdivision, a minor subdivision approval with bulk variances and a use
variance to that runs with the land to then market potentially to some other like-minded entity to Woods and Wayside. >> Um, >> so Mr. Casey, are you suggest or you're
proposing then that the resolution uh of any resolution would recite then the commitments that Woods and Wayside has made and that if it doesn't bind them because they don't buy the property
ultimately it will bind or need to bind whoever does. >> No, I mean I it's a use variance, right? >> Yes. So, >> so the underlying uses still would remain. That's not being changed. So, it's still it's still residential. It still has conditional uses that run with
it. And now it'll just have a use variance for preservation, education, um, conservation, those types of things. >> Yeah. So, so basically I mean that's what's the reliance on let's say
conservation is what's being used to support the use variance. So you're in agreement then that if it isn't Woods and Wayside that ultimately purchase it purchases the
property, those restrictions would still appear in the resolution so that some other owner would say, "Okay, well that's that's what I'm obligated to do then with the property." Is that what you're asking, Nathan? >> No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying
>> No, no, no. Wait, wait, Mr. Casey. Nathan, isn't that what you were asking? That's pretty much yeah that's pretty good summary of what I what the concern is is if this is subdivided >> you know if it gets recorded um
what happen right what happens uh if the purchase doesn't go through yes the use variance is there but what I'm hearing from Mr. Casey now is that it's uh an option that the the current the the proposed use of the property is not
what it's uh is one of a multitude of op well not a multitude but he he listed the options residential uh you know subject to restrictions based on the RA and RB zones. Um the yeah, but that is
the the the question and the the concern uh with the the subdivision uh and with uh Woods and Wayside. Um if that uh purchase doesn't uh somehow doesn't happen, >> it just further encumbers the land.
>> Yeah. >> Any change has to come before some body in this municipality for approval. But >> and possibly county approvals. >> Yes. But
>> I I think Mr. What's concerned though is that the special reason that's being advanced to permit the manor house to be used as an office space or a meeting center is
that the the specific purpose which is for conservation um and preservation. >> Yeah. So what if so so if they don't buy right >> right >> if they don't buy the school still owns
the property >> correct >> right so the school could sell it right the school could sell it uh someone who because it's in the residential zone someone who is wants to build houses could buy it from them right and they'd have to come and get site plan approval they'd have to do everything because it's a permitted use in the zone
>> right but if it falls through we have another we have another potential group of purchasers like DNR Greenway or SADC or some other conservation group out there that could step in and and be able to use this use. I mean, they'd
have to be able to prove, right, that not unlike any other use that you have to be able to to establish that you're actually using it consistent with the use variance or the zoning ordinance, right? So they would be able to use it,
but it doesn't it only it only layers on another use to the property. >> Okay. All right. I understand what you're saying. Okay. >> Does the board understand? [laughter] >> That's what the law >> I understand. It just it just further
encumbers it further restricts development of the property. Well, that's >> well it only further restricts development of the property due to it being half the size now or or a lot still a resial >> and the additional conservation easements >> with all the with all the restrictions
and the access easements and everything else. >> Well, with the certainly with the six acres that's already been recorded. You're right, Jim. I just I just wanted the board to understand that that a a developer could purchase this for residential
>> if if if Woods and Wayside doesn't buy it. Um but it will be restricted by all of these other conservation easements and and whatnot. So >> right now there's only one conservation ement >> correct six acres. So that's the only thing that's there now. So yes,
>> but yes, you're correct. They couldn't come in and do a residential development as of right. >> Um I think they could. >> No, they could. Yes, they could. >> It would it would be it would probably be a single family residence. Yeah. >> Y
>> it wouldn't be it wouldn't be a uh a subdivision >> with multiple. >> So somebody could use it as a single family as as an individual property. >> Yeah. because of all the restrictions on it, it it would it would be very difficult to
>> um to subdivide and and and build single family homes on this property. >> You know what you know what could happen is someone some rich guy like you, Mr. Cohen, could come in and buy the manor house >> and live in it as a home, right? It's it's zone residential and you would have a beautiful property.
>> I'd have to live in a trailer, but that's a separate issue [laughter] by myself. But the um No, I understand that. So the so it just this doing this further encumbers the property.
>> I I don't know that that's the right word, frankly, because it's >> it doesn't encumber it. It just is another potential use for it. >> Okay. And I think I think I understand the concern because on one hand, yeah,
the the propertyy's more encumbered or burdened with restrictions, but on the other hand, this particular subdivision and the shape and the size of it is as one board member myself
is related to, you know, the current party who, you know, wayside. It's It's all predicated on this presentation, you know, and I don't know that I would
approve I don't you know this subdivision for at at this size and shape for a different use. That's >> that's one of the things I've you know gotten from Mr. Foot and and Mr. Purcell
also. Yeah. So >> yeah, that's a fair point, Mr. Floyd. I I I don't disagree with you, sir. >> Yeah. And I think that's why >> Karen and Mr. Foot raised it. >> Yep. That's correct. >> Yep. Yeah. It's pretty unique. There's
no doubt about that. >> Yeah. And I Yeah. If if this subdivision survives, if Wayside walks away, then the board should be aware of that. And I thank Saff for making that.
Um, still cruising through. Um, >> I'm sorry. I I believe one of the board members has their hand raised or >> No, sorry, not board member, that's Mr. uh Mr. Bar. Sorry, I apologize.
I I just thought I should um just add a comment because it seems like there's a lot of discussion going on now about the possibility that Woods and Wayside might not purchase the property if the subdivision were approved. And um you
know this subdivision application is based on a deeply um negotiated plan that has been developed between Woods and Wayside and Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart. And you know, while I
can't go into details as to um you know, what agreements exist, um I can say that there is not a reasonable scenario that Woods and Wayside would not follow through and purchase a property from Princeton Academy with the
manor house lot and the surrounding land on it. So, um I I uh you know, I think what's being presented here is a plan that uh if the approvals
are granted, um has an extremely high likelihood of of of going forward and being brought to fruition. >> It's it's not absolute. >> Well, nothing is. Yeah. Um
on to 8A, we talked about employees. There's testimony on employees, the use for office and convening, public access to open space to the west of the properties.
Talked about that. And you stop me, Mr. Foot, if you need more. >> No, so far, you know, so far I have the notes that correlate to these. So yeah, you're good so far. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh proposed property boundary between the school lot and manor house is situated so that two
parking areas are provided on the manor house lot near the manor house. Applicant should indicate whether this is enough parking to suit the purposes. So I think we covered that. We covered that with you know the agreement that will be between pass and and um and the
manor house or woods and wayside in terms of overflow parking when the school is not in session. Um that that covers 8E fencing. That's 8F. >> Uh on on that one, let me just clarify. So you're saying that no no fencing will
be proposed. Um no fencing proposed at this time or I'm just uh >> none proposed at this time. I don't I don't think that there's any intent to put up fencing, but that'd be a question for whoever owns the property in the the
future. I don't can't say forever. I don't I mean, there could be a I think there's a fence permit requirement in Princeton. >> So, proposed >> I see Mr. Bar's hand raised again. >> Uh just to address that point, um
there's been no discussion about, you know, fencing between the property lines. um between the proposed manor house lot and the the proposed school lot. Um where there um has been some fencing in installed is on the public
access areas. For instance, on that 6acre conservation easement, Ridge View Conservancy has installed a a split rail fence um to effectively guide the public to uh stay on the trails and not wander over into the school lot. And if we
establish new public access trails, uh, you know, at any point in the future, that's the approach we would we would likely take. >> Um, all right. >> There's there's no plan to install a fence to separate the two properties. Um, if that's what you're asking about.
>> Yes, it was. And and that answers the question. Thank you. >> Um, easements beaten those to death. That's number. >> Yeah, I think those have been covered quite quite enough at this point. >> Um on to number 11. Uh no proposed
signage changes. The pash sign is going to stay where the pash sign is. Um any proposed signage for Woods and Wayside would be subject to your ordinance. >> Um okay. So the patch sign is going to
remain. Um will that need an easement? Um, I don't know if that's a question for >> uh your engineer or our engineer, but uh just want to make sure that that gets >> Yeah, we can include, you know, it makes sense to and it may already be in this
access easement that I have to try to track down, but yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense to put it in that access easement for the main drive there. That's easy enough. >> Agreed. Signment.
All right. Vehicle traffic um is not going to change in terms of entering and exiting the school. >> And I think there was testimony last time as well about this uh about the subject. >> That's right.
uh applicants to clarify if any other PASH operations will be affected by the subdivision and the sale of the lot. I don't think so. I think it's business as usual at PASH. Um the fields are all remaining the same through easements that already exist. Um parking, you
know, we're going to we the school will lose some parking to the manor house. Um, but again, we'll have that reciprocal uh agreement in terms of any overflow, that type of thing. So, I think we're good there.
Applicant shall advise if these if any trails will be rerouted, especially if the previously subdivided lots intend for residential purposes are indeed developed for such uses. So, I think there was uh testimony by Mr. are about that with the the ultimate goal to
connect to the east, right? And to have, you know, sidewalk up Great Road, those types of things. So, there might be a trail that goes across the middle of um the the preserve, the new lot that we're creating to connect
the 187 acres to whatever would be on the east to connect the trails. So, Mr. Bar talked about that a little bit. Sheet two of three of the plan set includes a note stating that the access road and utilities will remain on lot 4.05 unless it is sold for development.
So 4.05 already was sold and it can't be developed. >> Yep. So I think that was a remnant from the last approval uh the last subdivision approval. Um I don't know if maybe that needs to be changed at this
point. Um because it is encumbered in that way. Uh but you know I don't know if I'm the one to speak to that. >> I think Eric on you're talking about his page two. Yeah. So our plan references that. So I think that should be tightened up Eric on
>> Okay. >> Um because your your plan says there is a note stating that access road and utilities will remain on lot 4.05 unless it is sold for development. So I think you can get rid of the unless it is sold for development >> because it can't be sold for
development. >> Correct. >> Um I think we gave sufficient proofs on 16 through testimony for Mr. Rodriguez. Um, same with 17 from our planner.
And I think that's all she wrote on your >> memo. That that is indeed. Yes. Thank you. >> Yep. >> I don't have anything else. Uh, Miss Casey or Mr. Chair. Um, any other questions that we can answer?
Happy to do so. >> Okay, board members, do you have any question of any of the witnesses, the applicant, the attorney? So, I guess at this point, um, Mr. Casey, we're going to go into we're
going to open this up to the public for comment. Do you want to say anything before we do that? >> Yeah, I again, thanks for your time and and expediting this the way you have. It's greatly appreciated. You know, it's a I I'm intimately
familiar with the property. Um, as a little kid, I went to got dragged to church there and it's a great piece of land. It's something so worthy of being preserved like Woods and Wayside is is proposing. Um, a wonderful school. Um, I
think it's there's just a lot of goodwill built around this. Um, hopefully and I and it sounds from from Mr. Mr. Bar talking and Kathleen Hora talking as well who's the head of school that this is a really exciting endeavor that will continue to preserve beautiful
spaces in Princeton. So, I would ask that you all please kindly approve our application this evening and I thank you again for your time. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um at this point, we're going to open the the meeting to
the public. Uh if anybody would like to comment on behalf of this application, indicate that by pressing the raise your hands button at the bottom of the screen and Claudia will call you and you'll be
allowed to comment. Claudia, do you have people who are interested in commenting? Claudia, you're muted. Uh Sophie love. >> Okay. >> Sophie, are you there?
>> Sophie, can you hear me? Oh, here I am. >> We can hear you. >> Hello. Here I am. >> Ma'am, >> one second, ma'am. We need to see you >> now. I We can see her, Claudia. >> Okay. I I >> we are you comfortable giving us your address, ma'am?
>> Yes. Sophie Gloier, 68 Drake's Corner Road in Princeton. >> All righty. And you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> I wanted to uh thank you all for
considering this application and say that as a neighbor, we are extremely supportive of uh this plan. We think that the use that Woods Wayside is proposing for the manor house and their plans for the property uh is really wonderful. As a neighborhood, we've
partnered uh on the preservation of the property and it's great to see people really using this open space, the 187 acres. I walk there often and um I think that this eventually will only increase access and I want to commend Woodside
for being uh really excellent in terms of their communication with all of us as well. >> Thank you. >> Is that it? >> That's it. >> Okay. Claudia, can you call the next person please?
>> Uh Mr. Chairman, there are no more hands. Do you want to give it a minute? >> I will give it a minute. Yes. Okay, we're going to close the public portion of the hearing. Um, once again,
Mr. Casey, before we go into executive session, uh if you'd like to make a statement, sum up, what would you like to do? >> Now, I submit to the board um based upon my the testimony given and my last few
words that I said. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Okay, board members, at this point, we're going to go into executive session. Um questions, comments, [snorts] uh motions. Um
I have I guess I I started to ask earlier of Mr. PCEL. So all of the discussions of the easements, the prior work that
needed to be taken care of, the updated surveys if any that we need, uh, all that can be, and Karen, I guess this is a question for you as well. Can all of that be a condition of approval?
It's fine by me. I if it's acceptable to staff, then yes, that can all be a condition of approval. >> Board members, any questions, comments? Yes, please. Uh yeah, I was
wondering um I don't know if this is a question to our our staff, but uh would the driveway easement be um would it be better to to have some um distance
around it so in case future widening is needed? It's not literally the driveway that exists right now. Um, could could the easement be required to be expanded somewhat? >> Up to the applicant.
>> I mean, I >> you took the words out of my mouth, Steve. >> I mean, right now they're not asking for that. >> It's up to them. Bernice, do you have any other >> No, that was it. That was it.
>> Um, any other questions from board members, comments? >> I have a question. >> Sure, please. >> Is Is the real issue here whether we're allowing themselves to possibly set themselves up for a problem
in the future, >> Dave. David, when you say that, what what are you referring to? you know, if the current sale falls through or if uh the uh the school closes down, you
know, they're limiting their options. At least this is what I hear in the discussion. And you know, it seems like they've been warned about this and they're ready to proceed.
But am I missing something? I feel the same way you do. I mean, basically, if this falls through, they have certain options, but they don't have every option. Mhm. >> I I guess I guess the only question I
would ask then is the justification for the subdivision is is is tied to a conservation, environmental education, passive
recreation use. Um and that's what's supporting that's what's being advanced to support the variance. So if this transaction doesn't happen
>> um then the question becomes uh well I guess what happens then is that the manor house could not be used as a meeting or convention center without further relief.
So that that aspect because remember not only did they ask for a subdivision but they want those variances to allow the manor house to be used. So in the absence of that then they would still have
this subdivision would still exist. So >> Michael, wasn't that your concern as well? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. Um, I don't know. It's It's a good question. Um,
you know, I still have that concern. Um I realized if you know because what they're asking for and the use um you know the woods wayside is is much
narrower a use and there's other permitted uses or conditional uses. So, um I really am supporting the woods, you know, purpose
that use. And yeah, in in perfect world for me, uh the subdivision would die if something other than sort of the a very
same or similar use replaces, you know, woods wayside. I mean I think >> I mean one way one way to look at this is I mean this is how it's been presented to you by the applicant
and I guess they'd say that's because they have an entity here uh Woods Wayside and they want to buy it. >> Yeah. >> The agreement is get a subdivision and we're going to buy the lot. >> So I guess the question for Mr. Casey
would be all right. Is your client is your client still approaching this that if this transaction falls through that the subdivision is tied to someone else using
lot proposed lot 4.06 for conservation environment environmental education and passive recreation. >> Yeah. I guess for me Karen I guess the question is not to Mr. Casey, it's the Miss Casey
and it's whether we can condition this subdiv, you know, subdivision approval. Exactly. On that, >> Michael, let me ask you something in need that question answered from from Karen.
>> I was going to ask another question. Okay. >> I mean, this is how it's being presented to you. the the as a result of the subdivision a lot of variances are needed. >> Yes.
>> So the supporting reason for all this is that you will be um allowing uh a wonderful use out there for conservation for environment education.
So my answer would be yes. I think you can condition it because that's what's that's the justification that's being presented to you. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> In future this falls apart and now the school has two lots.
Yes. Are there underlying uses? Yeah, there are. But the justification that uh they've presented through planning and everything else is oh no this is a wonderful use and that's why you should
approve this. This going to this is going to promote many things. It will promote master plan goals purposes of zoning. So that's why my answer is yes. I think you can if you want to condition it that way. It doesn't necessarily mean
it's woods and wayside, but it means it's >> another conservation environmental education group. >> So what happens if Woods and Waysides does not purchase it, >> right? >> And they have another they had they
don't they can't find another purchaser who's willing to take it on the way it's been tenative. Is it tenatively approved? Because it's if if they walk then Michael, are you saying that the use
>> the the the subdivision would die? >> Would die. >> The the use can stay in, you know, can stay in place because it's pretty specific, but there wouldn't be a need for it anymore. The subdivision would die. And that's I'd be satisfied with
that. I mean, this the lines of the subdivision have been specifically tailored to allow the school >> to keep what has been agreed upon between the parties and to allow Manor
House to have certain improvements. So, if if their transaction falls apart, now we have two lots that have been pretty much tailored to this purpose. So, I don't know. I I I
don't know what I mean. I'm not sure what the um at this point having presented it this way to the board. Um >> I I don't know what else to at this stage for the school. I mean this this
is the justification and these these zigzag lot lines were created and would be approved by the board because of the totality of what's being done out there. if this was going to be oh there might
be a residential lot or somebody can buy the manor house and live there I don't know if would have um these same lot lines >> it's it's somewhat complicated I guess in a conventional real estate
transaction woods and wayines would be the contract purchaser >> yes would come before us >> right >> for subdivision and approval and if it didn't go through they wouldn't buy it. And so, but we have a we have a
them Woods and Waysides as as an interested party right now and the school as the applicant. >> Yeah. The school's Well, school's the owner and >> Well, the owner, but the owner and the applicant, right?
>> School's the applicant. >> Yeah. I mean, but Woods and Wayides is just a an interested party. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, fine. We're we're looking to satisfy the school Lynwoods and and Wait
for my view. That's what we want to do. If I may, I I I I understand and it's an interesting point, right? It absolutely is. But if you play it out this way, if the subdivision is approved and the deal
with Woods and Wayside falls apart, we now we the school now owns two lots that are in the RA RB zone who operate a school under a conditional use. Right? So the school could sell
the subdivided lot, the new lot we're creating tonight to someone who wants to put homes on it. that person would have to get site plan approval and deal with the different
messed up setbacks that are kind of all over the place, right? To put a home in there. So whether or not it's a condition of the approval or not, Princeton Academy of the Sacred Heart will still own the dirt and it will
still be in an RA RDB zone and they still could sell it to someone who wants to build homes in there. >> That person would have to come before the board to be a Oh, no. They wouldn't to be Well, they would >> they would have to come before the planning board.
>> Yeah. not not not the zoning board but the planning board know if they wanted to put four homes and get lot lot get lot variances and setback and all that jazz >> they would have to come and do that >> absolutely >> so I think my point is is like I don't
think you need to make the transaction contingent on the subdivision >> I agree >> because at the end of the day all it is doing is drawing a new line that's going to be owned own by the same people. If
it falls apart, I'm talking if it falls apart with Woods and Wayside, a new lot line that's got a new lot number. We own two lots now and we can sell them to someone who's willing to be creative and still has to get site plan approval and variance relief for bulk variances from
the planning board. But but Bob, the justification for this application and for the use variance you need because the F is changing now for the manor house. It's all tied to the fact
that this is going to be a public benefit. I I'm looking at your narrative. The proposed use as a school and for preservation education use on the Manor House lot easily satisfies the negative criteria. There will be no detriment to the public good. Quite the
opposite. The public will benefit from the use of the trail systems and it goes on and on talking about that. So >> yeah, but that's the use part of it. That's not that's the use piece where it's a bifurcated application. We're here that's why we're before the zoning board for both things because that's the use piece that will run with the
property no matter what. Right. And that's exactly right. We stand by the narrative and all the testimony you heard tonight is has to do with woods and way size use. No question about it. >> No, no. You need you need a use variance
because the F is being increased. The subdivision of the lot separating Manor House from the Princeton Academy reduces the lot area. >> So, >> right. So if someone comes to apply to build a house there right >> or houses they could face the same
obstacles right f impervious all the other bulk requirements in the RB so I'm I'm not tracking. So your argument is somebody now approaches Sacred Heart, your deal falls apart.
Sacred Heart says, "Well, we really need to do something with it. You know, we just can't we we didn't really need two lots." Okay. And a developer tells you, "Well, manor house is very nice, um, but
it's not really what I had in mind." or manor house is very nice and I'm going to that I mean what what I'm trying to say is the justification for what you want here for the relief
you're seeking is all tied to the user lays at the wayside >> what Michael said Michael you brought that up earlier >> yeah I I yeah I don't know why we have to repeat it five times
Sorry. Well, what about other board members? We haven't heard from them. Do you have other thoughts about the uh the topic that we've been now discussing at great length?
>> Well, I mean, I don't I I think I can make this easy on everybody, but I still just the attorney in me doesn't want to. >> Okay. Um, [laughter] >> but I'll get over that. I promise.
So I I mean it in and in fairness it probably would be a benefit to the school potentially that and I have to I just have to think of the the mechanics behind perfecting the subdivision and having a transaction with Woods and Wayside.
Okay. So, if you were to approve our application tonight contingent upon a transaction to Woods and Wayside, right, that that if if it doesn't happen, the subdivision goes away and we're back to
what we were before, right? The only problem I see with that is the mechanics behind it, right? So I have to record deeds, easements, meet all the conditions of the engineer
and the zoning officer and then Woods and Wayside gives us money for the land, right? So those things are getting recorded before we get a dime from Woods and Wayside. >> So that's the practical
application here. So I I understand what everyone is saying, but in practice it wouldn't be feasible to make it contingent upon the transaction because we need to perfect the subdivision to
make the transaction happen. >> Okay, Bob. Either either you it could be perfect all this could be done at closing meaning everything gets recorded in a certain order. the subdivision dee gets recorded first then your
transactional deed or alternatively if the board's comfortable if the subdivision subdivision deed deeds or deed is signed it could be held in escrow so I mean there's ways I think we
can get around this it it could be done either if either as I said it could be all done on the day of closing everything is, you know, we'll give them to you. You'll hold them an escer. You say, "Okay, I'm moving ahead now." And your title company records everything in order.
>> Create the lots, then close. >> So, >> fair enough. I you know, I think that the the timing of that makes makes it more cumbersome, but but I agree, Karen. I mean, I think it I think you're right there.
So, if it's going to mean that you guys have extreme trepidation about approving this application, which I I hope you do not because it's a great application, I think selfishly, then make it a condition of approval.
That's That sounds good to me. I [clears throat] you know I the point that Mr. Casey made I guess I I maybe it's correct. I I don't really follow it cuz all the conditions that
the board and staff put on aren't you going to perfect all those before the transaction goes through anyway? It's not going to be after the fact. No, I think that well I I think I understand what you're
saying is exactly what I was saying is like that would all have to happen and then we get their money. So what Karen is suggesting is that we have it all teed up and yeah ready to go which is fine just having done these applications
where it's hard to get all the pieces together to have so that that's all just practical consideration but it's doable. seems to make sense. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I would I would support that.
So would I. But who who who can uh I'd like to make a motion, but I I'm not sure I can. I I'm I'm in the similar boat. Actually, I seems to me I can't can't think of any
reason why we wouldn't why we would be here tonight if there was a serious concern that the this sale would not go through, but I know that's not necessarily [snorts] enough
um for some people, but I think we >> Bernice, was there a motion? Um, well, I think everybody is expressing a hesitation about the wording of it, so maybe Karen could assist with that, but I think um, yeah,
we're we're in favor of the the concept behind that we're discussing. >> All right. Well, if someone were to make a motion to approve the application, um it could include
uh the following conditions that the applicant would comply with the comments in the engineering and zoning memo uh and the planning memo as uh has been
reviewed in detail tonight. Um it would also be conditioned on the uh guess it would be uh lot proposed lot 4.06 06
um being conveyed to Woods and Wayside for conservation, environmental education and passive recreation or I guess to a similar entity um who would pursue the
same purposes. So if Woods and Wayside falls apart, then I guess the school's got another opportunity to have another conservation group who's going to pursue the same goals, etc. Um
so those are the conditions that I think we have discussed tonight. Um and as part of those conditions, I mean there was a lot of discussion about the
identification of all the easements, but um I think for the purposes of the resolution, what you'll see is I can go through now the memo and the comments and flesh that out. But for the purposes of tonight, um I'm proposing we simply
say as has been discussed um in detail tonight with the applicant >> and then you'll craft the resolution. >> Correct. Correct. Yeah, you'll see it and um Mr. Casey will see it all in advance so everyone can review it.
>> Bernice, all you have to do is say so moved. >> So moved. I'm in favor of [laughter] of that. >> Well, we need We need we need a second. >> Well, just to but I think you're saying the same thing but that but that the minor subdivision is approved
>> that the uses are approved >> that the bulk variances are approved. >> Correct. >> Okay. Good. >> Correct. >> Understood. >> Second. >> So Bernese has made a motion. >> I'ming it >> and Eve seconded it. Do we have is there
any discussion? Boy, this is a good one. Is there any discussion on the motion? [laughter] >> Well, there will >> no. >> Okay. No discussion of the motion. Claudia, can you call the role? >> Miss T?
>> Yes. >> Miss Coulson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shrivever? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stein? >> Yes. Sure, I'm going. >> Yes.
>> Okay, we're approved. >> Rico. >> Yeah. Thanks. Thanks everybody. I know it's a lot going on here, but um greatly appreciate it and wasn't easy and thanks again for your time. I appreciate it. >> Hey, good good presentation.
Luck with the whole sale. >> Yeah, >> absolutely. Here's to Pash and uh >> Karen, good luck in writing it up. We look forward to seeing. >> Yes. Thank you, Karen. >> And great staff memos. >> I appreciate Mr.
>> Great staff me. >> Great staff memos. >> Jim James, thanks for your participation. Nathan, too. Thank you very much for your participation tonight. >> This was complicated. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> To say the least. >> Okay. Good night, everyone.
>> Good night, everybody. >> So, we we're adjourned. This is the end of it.