Okay. So, we're going to open a meeting for this evening. Um, this is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held on February 25th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13
of the Open Public's Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the Sunshine notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment at the on the official bulletin board
of the Princ Princeton Municipal Complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet, Town topics, the Times, Tranonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on February 20th, 2026
and has been posted to the municipal website in consideration of the executive order 292 issued by Governor Murphy on March 4th, 2022 declaring a continued state of emergency
in the state of New Jersey. The Princeton Zoning Board does hereby notify the public that to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens while excuse me um
while ensuring the continued functioning of the government. This regular meeting of the Princeton zoning board of adjustment will be held electronically only. Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so by
telephone or through video conferencing platform via Zoom by accessing the telephone numbers and the link posted on the municipal website www. uhp princeton.gov/openzoning
gov/openzoning open zoning I can't read it board tab meetings that's it I believe that's the end of the public statement they changed it again is that the end of it Karen >> yes
>> okay it's shorter than I remember. Okay. Um, >> we'll open the meeting now. Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Yes. Miss Chen, Miss Coulson, >> here. >> Mr. Floyd,
Mr. Shrivever, >> here. >> Mr. Tenbomb. Mr. Stein >> here. >> Miss Donna. Mr. Dokin >> here. >> Chairman Cohen >> here.
Thank you. >> Okay, before before we start, do we have enough members for the next meeting for the next special meeting? >> We're not having No, no, I don't think so, Stephen. The headcount, not enough people were available. >> Okay.
>> For a special meeting. So, the next one will be March 25th, the regularly scheduled meeting. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Karen, do we want to do the resolutions first or would you like them? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we have two resolutions this evening. The first is 45 Markham Road,
block 53.03, lot 43 in the R3B zone. Um, it's, excuse me, it's case number Z25-715. The resolution should be in your packets. If you've had an opportunity to
review it and have any questions or in the absence of questions, if someone would like to make a motion, >> I move we approve it. >> Okay, >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Claudia, can you have the
call the role, please? >> Sure. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> yes. >> Mr. Stein, >> yes. Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, that was a resolution. I thought
we had two. We had one. Okay. Um, we have two applications this evening. >> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask that um the board consider >> uh taking 105 Mountain Avenue uh out of
turn because the applicant amongst the variances they need is a uh Dvariance for floor area ratio. Uh that requires five affirmative votes. We have five
members here tonight and think it might be helpful to confirm with the applicant whether they want to proceed uh under these circumstances. Uh if they don't uh the board could carry it as it has with other
applications where we have this uh situation. Um but this way the applicant doesn't have to wait through the first application to to make that request. So, uh, if that >> I think that's I think that's >> acceptable.
>> Yes. I'll note that the U noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight if and then we can hear from the applicant who I think is here. >> Okay. Should I just should I just identify the case first?
>> Absolutely. Sorry. >> Okay. So this case now is uh case number Z25-670-676 105 Mountain Avenue block 6804 lot night lots 19 and 20 in the R2T zone.
So as um our attorney said um the applicant may want to speak who's representing this case is >> I'm here. My name is Lane. I am the applicant in this case. Also the owner of the property uh representing ourself
uh for this application. Um since we are asking for devance and needed a five affirmative mo votes and uh due to a lack of full board, we are asking if our case can be carried to a future date.
>> Okay. Um I see no problem in that. Claudia, when would this case be carried to? >> March 25th. >> Okay. Is that acceptable to you? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, for the benefit of anybody who's
here from the public, uh this application will get carried to March 25th. The applicant will not be required to do any further noticing. >> Okay. All right. Good. So, we'll carry it. Thank you for uh coming before us this
evening and we'll see you on March 25th. >> Thank you board. Thank you and staff from the zoning office. Good night. >> Good night. Okay. Now our remaining case is case number Z25-716
68 Clear View Avenue block 7307 lot 12 in the R7T zone. Um, Taylor, would you like to Miss Grivens, would you like to read your memo on this case? >> Um, I'll just I'll just I'll just first
noticing is in order. The board has jurisdiction and I will swear you in, >> Miss Griven. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, again, this application is for
68 Clear View Avenue. the owner's um Donna Palenza applicants Rainbow Properties LLC. Uh the subject property is not in a designated um historic district. Tonight, the applicant is seeking a C2
variance to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new two-story single family dwelling. Uh you'll hear shortly. Um, the applicant proposes to construct a 2700 ft house with a full
basement, six bedrooms, five full baths, living and dining room space, and a studio. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to construct a detached onecar garage behind the proposed dwelling. The C variance being sought in tonight's
approval is for the lot area. The existing lot is 10,500 square ft where the required lot area for the R7T zone is 10,890 square ft. Being that the subject lot is short 390
ft being in compliance, the applicant shall advise the board if they have contacted the adjacent land owners to determine if they would be willing to sell property to lessen or maybe even eliminate the need for this variance. Um, a few more points. The applicant
proposes to shift the existing non-compliant driveway, the apron, which opens on clear view, slightly to the left, bringing it into compliance with the code. The applicant also proposes a sidewalk from the entrance of the dwelling to the existing pedestrian
sidewalk, bringing the property further into compliance with the neighborhood character ordinance. Lastly, there are 16 existing trees that are proposed to be removed as a result of the development. The applicant has obtained approval from the municipal
arborist in January to which the arborist commented that the removal was warranted. That permit is part of your packet. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um, otherwise, I'd be happy to turn it over to Mr. Shhatzman. Okay.
All right. Board members, any questions of Miss Gribbons? Okay. M >> I guess arborist isn't here tonight, right? >> No. No. The the permit though is in your packet for you to see the information and everything. Yeah.
>> Okay. Mr. Schzman. >> Yes. Richard Shman, attorney for the applicant. This is a one uh scope variance uh from the lot area uh answering uh uh
Miss Griven's whether we contacted the uh adjacent land owners. Uh Mr. uh committ will testify the two lots uh on either side are improved and undersized.
So, um the uh the suggestion by Judge Serpentelli to try to make the lot conform would be useless because they're all undersized. Secondly, following the case
of uh Delmare versus Lacy, where this comes from, a Supreme Court case called Davis Enterprises versus Carp, a Supreme Court case in 1987 says that where the uh property is uh all
approved, which this is, um the applicant really doesn't have to um notify or try to get somebody to buy the property or to uh acquire adjacent land.
So that's the answer. The arborist has filed and we filed with the application. uh the arborist uh statement that he inspected the property and the property all the trees there are
uh dying or worthless and he uh says that we can clearcut it and Mr. Schmidt will testify as to our landscaping which the arborous bias report that you have in your record uh seems to support. So, I'll have Mr.
Schmidt, who's the engineer who did the work, uh, be sworn in by Miss Casey, and then we and qualify as an expert. The board comes to that conclusion, and he will, uh, present a little bit more
detail on the case that um, Miss Griven did. So, you'll swear, Mr. >> Yeah, Mr. Schmidt, there you are, Mr. Schmidt, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Schmidt, do we want to tell the
board very briefly because you've appeared here before the qualifications are? >> Uh David J. Schmidt, professional engineer, license number 39409. I have testified in front of the zoning and planning board. Uh >> M. Mr. Schmidt, we we recognize you and
and uh we uh concur that you're can be considered an expert with us. >> Thank you very much. >> And uh just for the record, you prepared the plans, you inspected the property, you're familiar with the ordinance of Princeton and the municipal land use
law. Correct. >> All the above. >> Okay. Please present your >> Okay. I I I concur with everything that Taylor Gribbon has testified in the beginning. Uh I'm not going to go over uh all that she has said. Uh I hope you
can see u I'm sharing the screen. I'm sharing the variance plan. I'm hoping everyone can see that. Is that on the on the screen for everyone? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Good. >> Okay. This is the variance plan prepared for lot 12 block 7307 dated November
24th, 2025. revised January 12th, 2026 as prepared by this office. This is what has been provided Derek Bridger and and it's the copy of the plans that you have in front of you. Uh the the relief that we're requesting is is correct. We are short 390 square ft. The property is
10,500. Your ordinance is 10,890. Um it's very minor. Um very undized or as far as what we're asking for is very dimminimous. Um, as far as the adjacent lots for the tax map of uh Princeton Township to your left, which is the
west, which is lot 11, the lot area for that property is 0.24 acres, which is the same size as our property. And to the east, which is lot 13, uh, that property also has 0.24 acres, and it's undersized, and it's also developed. uh
to the rear uh of the property if you wanted to acquire some property to the back which is block 7401 lot two uh that is owned by Princeton Township and it is actually a park and part of the ballfield little league field. So uh to acquire land from any of these
properties would be especially the park would be difficult and acquiring lands from lot 11 or lot 13 uh taking any land would just intensify any uh um zoning that they have. So it would not it might relieve our situation but you'll be
intensifying uh uh the zoning violations on the adjacent lots which as Richard said the in the legal which is not my area of expertise uh is not what you like to do. So uh we're seeking release for just lot
area only. We meet all the other bulk variances of the of the zone. Um the the majority of the lots in this area are um I have for a tax map if you look in the far top right hand corner of the property. The majority of them all are
0.24.23 and there's a scattered 0.25 throughout but majority of these lots in this vicinity of the town are about 0.24. So we are consistent with the property and the surrounding areas. Um the applicant
proposes to construct a new 2 and a half story 2716q ft dwelling. The F is 2587 whereas 25.9 is permitted and that is permitted per the F adjustment which is per your ordinance. The single family
home and the property is located exactly almost exactly in the same place as existing home um where these you know will be demolished. Uh, as Taylor said, we're proposing a new dwelling with a onecar onecar detached garage in the rear. Uh, we meet the Princeton parking
requirements and the access to the property will utilize the existing depressed curb along Clear View Avenue. Uh, we did shift the driveway, which was close to the property line, to be at least 5T off the line, which makes us even more conforming than what is
previously out there. Um, as far as storm water management, storm water management is not required per ordinance as we are not proposing anything more than 400 square ft of impervious surface coverage and in fact the application is
decreasing the impervious surface coverage by 398 square ft. Um, the lock lot coverage for the property is 36.61. It was 40.4 and the ordinance allows 49.5. So we are decreasing the uh impervious surface
coverage. The house is going in the s same location. Therefore the drainage patterns remain the same and will have no impact to the adjacent properties. As far as the trees um as part of this development 16 trees will be removed per the Princeton tree replacement
ordinance. 24 trees are required uh to be replaced and we're proposing 24 trees. Uh the plans were forwarded to the arvinist Taylor Spadar and we will comply with Taylor's January 5th 2026 recommendation on tree removal.
Uh we are screening around the adjacent properties with green arborites or leaning leeland cyprus with some American red bud throughout the property. Um as you can see on the the lot that's to the right we have in the rear all the trees are dead um or dying.
Um we're putting uh green arbor bodies on uh in that area and along the property line we're adding some green arbor vodies and some um cypress leaning. Um, I visited the site and Jim
Sadana, who is the Rainbow Properties, um, when Jim and I went through this initial application, he was telling me about the trees that need to be removed, and I was a little taken back that we needed to take the trees that that had to, but once you do a site visit and you
look at the trees and the ivy growing all the way up the trees and and all the trees on the property are are in illrepair and I know the arvis confirmed that it's it's unusual that so many trees um that are that diseased, but the
property is just loaded with um trees that need to be replaced. And I think we're replacing with 24 trees that you know will establish a new growth and and a new look for the area that the slate has been unmaintained for many many years. So I think it's a good application. I think it's it's it's
going to enhance uh the area with the new house and someone maintaining the property where the house was definitely not maintained for many many at least easy decade. Um uh the engineering plot plan and architectural plan design fit seamlessly
into the neighborhood. The existing properties currently served with public sewer, public water, gas, electric, and local telephone. The proposed dwelling will access utilities utilizing the same service lines wherever possible and then the residential garbage will be collected by curbside pickup on a weekly
basis. Um that's all I have to report. Um I think it's a very straightforward application. It's just under size lot 5.1 uh acre or as I said 390 ft. Um we are meeting every
um bulk requirements and the deviations that the existing site has with no sidewalk to the front and the side and the driveway being closer to the property line. We're we're pulling it away and providing landscaping I think is a solid plan and that's that's
basically my testimony. >> Okay, Mr. Shatzmann is is that the conclusion of the presentation? >> Mr. Con, it is. >> Okay. Board members, do you have any question of the attorney or the
engineer? >> Eve, I can't hear. >> No wonder. No wonder. Um, Mr. Schmidt, I had a similar reaction to the number of trees that were um and to be taken down and I I that's kind of what I often
react to if it's like that. And I I looked around what so I I what what I'm finding is I actually even though you know it's nice to keep old growth trees, if they're not in good
shape, then that's not a good idea. But I'm wondering if we can can we hold you to the 16 being removed and the 24 being replaced in that there's a discrepancy between your narrative and the um
application from the town which says on the second page total replacement 11 number of trees to be removed 19. >> Right. So, I like what I like where you're going with it, but um I'm confused about
why there's a discussion. >> I'm confused about it, too. And I didn't have a chance to talk to Taylor. What I think what she was doing is I I don't look at dead trees. Um to me, you know, my my surveyor does not identify I mean, he does if he knows it is completely dead. In Taylor's report, she identifies
um I think two or three trees that are dead, which I don't I think that's where the discrepancy comes into play. And then she has some of the trees that I I think that they might be undersized that that don't qualify to be in the tree count. Um but you know, we we will agree
to whatever this board we will agree upon and we also agree with whatever Taylor um su suggest that we knock down. Um I mean it's it's it's expensive to knock these he these big trees down, but you look at them. >> I mean the big ones I and I've been in
front of this board. I I know where the hot spots are and the hot spots are are F and its trees. And um that's why I had Jim Sedano reach out to the Arvinist before this hearing because I I I'm sure Eve you you've been at me before with
trees and I I need to make sure that I I mean we'll you know we'll work with with this board and the arbit way you want to write it. If if you know if if trees can be saved, we'll do it. But I I think if you were able to go out there, you'd look at it and and you'd be the same way
I was. I was like, "Yeah, they they need >> No, I and I did take a look. I I only I wasn't so sure about the ones in the back in the very back because I did feel slightly like I was trespassing even though it didn't look like anybody lived there." Um, but you know, I didn't look
closely and what you said about Ivy makes sense to me. I I guess all I'm saying is that your narrative is more uh positive in a sense if you either want to cut down less trees but also want to add more. So if we can hold you to that
or if this can be kind of you know put into you know if they can conform somehow that you know I I just I just you saw the discrepancy too. So, but your but your narrative is more, you know, is has more trees coming in and
less coming out. So, >> uh I agree with whatever your your arvinist considers a tree. Again, if they consider a lot of townships do not acknowledge a dead tree where you have to do the mitigation. So, that's where I
think the discrepancy is. Uh we didn't identify if you look at their report, they identified dead trees whereas we did not. So that's >> that's where I think discrepancy is. >> Um and you know I we'll we'll plant you
know 24 trees if that's you know that's where where you're looking for. We'll do that. >> Looks great. Sounds great. I So then um Mr. Cohen, does that how do we in >> Well, if that's if that's what the applicant will agree to, 24 trees will
be new trees will be planted >> and then >> and how many are going to come out? Well, what I have coming out is more than what the arbanist is, but like I said, they're not counting the trees. So, it would be >> Well, you in the narrative it only says
16 and then the arborist it um says 19, >> right? >> So, your report is more positive for the trees. >> I go with 16. >> Okay. So we'll say a maximum of 16 trees
will be removed as approved by the arborist, >> right? >> I mean, >> go ahead, Eve. >> Well, I just I don't want if there's a discrepancy that is, you know, if the arborist I mean I I
don't know. I just I don't want you to be stuck with a dead tree if just because we're saying this here. So I'm not quite sure how to handle it if the because the arbor you know what I'm saying. I'm just not sure what >> Yeah, we don't want to come back to the board because we have one extra tree to cut down. That's for sure.
>> I don't Do we want to just do we want to say that the arborist will make the final determination on how many trees will be removed? >> Yeah, that'll be perfect. >> But 24 trees will be added. >> That That's fine because we're we we can live with the it'll in
enhance the property with the additional trees for resale. So that's >> I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just I just noticed the difference and I >> I I noticed it too and I you know getting uh an arist and you know would be a site visit out to the property it'd
be more than the three trees that we're asking for. So I I I would recommend that we just add the extra trees as opposed to having the meeting of the mind. >> Okay. All right. Eve, is that acceptable to you? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Mr. Schmidt, you're comfortable with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Uh board members, any other questions of the attorney or the engineer? >> Okay. Hearing none. Um we'll open this
up to the public in a moment. Mr. Shatzman, do you want to sum up or say anything before we open the hearings to the public? >> Mr. Con, it's a dimminimous application. the uh house is basically where was
before and storm waters uh not changed. Um and um it meets several of the goals of planning under 4055D2
and it's a classic hardship under Dalmire versus Lacy and Davis Enterprises versus KARP and um the trees we resolve the issue Miss
Coulson brought up and uh we met our bird of proof And certainly it's no detriment to his own plan, master plan or general welfare house is going to be a modern new house that's uh going to be
uh salailable to persons who want to live on Clear View Avenue and that's it. Okay, is that it? All right. At this time, uh, we'll open the hearing up to the public. If there's anybody in the audience, can you take
the screen down, Mr. Schmidt? Um, if there's anybody in the audience who'd like to speak on behalf of this application, if you would indicate that by raising your hand, the symbol in the bottom of the screen. Claudia, has anybody indicated they'd like to speak
on behalf of this application? >> There are no hands. >> Okay, give it a couple of seconds here. >> All right, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And again, Mr. Shatsman, before we go into executive session, do you want to say anything
else? >> No, sir. >> Okay. All right, board members. Um, is there any discussion on this? or if not if someone would like it's a pretty straightforward application. Um
so if there are any questions please ask if not if someone would like to make a motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Oh go ahead David. >> Uh you know that yeah with with thieves concern that we approve this.
>> Okay. Do we have a second? >> Ste, I'll second. >> George Stein. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? >> All right. Claudia, can you call the role? >> Miss Coulson? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Strivever? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stein? >> Yes. >> Mr. Dokin? >> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um that concludes our hearing for
this evening and um we are adjourned. >> Have a good night everybody. >> Good night. >> Good night. The care.