Hi Bernice. >> Hello. >> Hi Bernice. >> How's everyone? >> Okay, >> good. >> Okay, we ready to begin? >> Yes. >> Good. Good evening. This is a regular
meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on June 24th, 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 municipal complex by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on June 18th, 2026 and by posting a copy on the municipal
website homepage as a public notice. princonj.gov/1527 /1527-pub notices. Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Miss Chen, >> here.
>> Miss Coulson, >> here. Mr. Floyd >> here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here. >> Mr. Tannen, >> Mr. Stein >> here. >> Miss Donna. >> Yes.
Chairman Cohen >> here. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Did Did you get Eve? >> Did I? >> You did. Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh we have three resolutions this evening which were all in your packets
board members. The first is case number Z22-295 13 prospect block 49.01 lot 2.01 in the E2B zone. Does anyone have any questions or comments on the resolution?
And if not, if someone would like to make a motion. >> I move approval. >> A second. >> Thank you. Can you call the role, please? >> Miss Tim?
>> Yes. >> Miss Coulson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shrivever? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stein? Yes. >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you,
>> Harris. Okay. Thank you. Our second resolution is case number Z26-738 288, Cherry B Cherry Hill Road, block 3901, lot 11.01
in the RAT zone. Once again, questions, comments, or motions? I'll move to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you. Can you call the role, please? >> Miss Chen,
>> yes. >> Miss employ. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shver, >> yes. >> Mr. Stein, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. Our third resolution is case
number Z25-72, 1128 Great Road, block 301, lot 401 in the RA and RB zone. Questions, comments, or motions, please. >> I congratulate those who wrote this up
for uh getting such a complete summary. >> Thank you. I'll move to approve. Or was that your way of moving to approve, Mr. Shri? No, >> I'll second.
>> I wouldn't get in your way, Eve. >> Wave. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Ploy, >> yes. Mr. Schwber, >> yes. >> Mr. Stein, >> yes.
>> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. We have uh four applications this evening. The first one is 25 Henderson Avenue. It's case number
Z25-654. Uh block 6801 lot 11 in the R2T zone. Darren, are the notices in order for this one? >> Remember, yes, this has been carried a number of times. So, yes, the notices
are in order. Uh, but the applicant's attorney has advised that the applicants would like to carry this application. I believe their attorney is here this evening. I'm looking through
um let's just see uh Claudia. I'm not sure he's here or not. Um but uh my understanding is uh the litigation
that's ongoing regarding uh the access for 25 Henderson as well as other properties on the street is um I guess nearing a point where it's
anticipated uh there uh would be a ruling by the court. So, uh, it it seems to make sense from the applicant's point of view to see if the application could be carried to, uh, the
next meeting, which is July 22nd. I see Mr. Teddaro now. Did Did I explain that correctly, Mr. Tadaro? >> Yes. Hi, good evening, uh, chair, members of board. Anthony Tedaro, law firm, Fakery, Drinker, Bidd and Wreath.
Uh, my firm represents the applicants. Um, I was being admitted as a panelist, so I'm not sure I caught everything. Um, however, yes, uh, uh, towards the end, there's there's a chance that the court renders a decision. Um, we're not sure,
uh, if it'll come out in time. Um, or even if the if it does, the judge's decision actually impacts um, anything that we've already submitted. Um however we at least want to at least carve out that that opportunity
uh make their request to carry it to July. If there is something that we need to um address uh based off that uh the court's decision um it'd be better than uh starting then stopping amending our presentation and then coming back to the
board. >> Okay. And so we would just ask that the the board um grant the adjournment to the July meeting without any further notice by the applicant. And I believe the decision deadline does not run until the
end of August. Um however, um uh your attorney could certainly reach out to me and we'll gladly provide our consent to an extension. I do have a question of our zoning officer. Um Taylor, what do we have in
July? How many >> we have? >> We have one case scheduled which was carried from a previous meeting and that's 164 prospect. >> So that next the 22nd of July would be fine.
Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. Okay. Our next uh our next application is case number Z25-676 105 Mountain Avenue, block 6804,
lot 19 and 20 in the R2T zone. And just a question, does this Mountain Avenue 105 and 105 borders on Henderson as well? Does this ongoing
litigation affect that one? >> Well, Steve, uh, it affects it to the extent that, uh, 105 Mountain Avenue has its access. It's It's the very last house on the
street. It faces Mountain Avenue, but it has its access on Henderson Avenue. Um the staff had suggested in their review memo that were the board to approve this
application, a condition of the approval would be that the applicant would need to provide uh a written valid access easement for review and approval of staff
and the applicant is aware of that condition. My understanding is, and she will explain herself, that's acceptable to her, and my understanding is they would like to move ahead if they can tonight since the application's been carried a couple of times.
So you you could you I guess you could argue that the yes they are they are tied up in this access issue but uh their situation is a little bit different in that they are the very last house and they are
fronting on Mount Nav. >> Okay. Um that's fine. Let's proceed. is all of I guess we must have taken jurisdiction several months ago. >> It's been carried now a couple of times.
So yes, the noticing was in order and we carried it and uh the board has jurisdiction to proceed tonight >> and and Miss Miss Casey, if I may, can I just before I log off, can I just confirm that we made the announcement that the prior
>> Yes. And I I'm I'm sorry. Just for the benefit of anybody who is watching, uh the 25 Henderson Avenue application has been carried to July 22nd agenda. The applicant will not be obligated to
provide any further noticing. Um but you will for those who are interested, it will appear then on the July 22nd uh agenda and that will be posted on the municipal website. >> Fantastic. Thank you so much. Sorry
about that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, who is going to represent uh the Mountain Area application? >> Good evening board members. Um, my name is Lane and this is my husband Walker.
We are as owners and applicants representing oursel. >> Please proceed. >> Right, ma'am. We're just >> Sorry. >> I'm sorry, Miss Goo. I'm sorry. What I was going to say is I'd like to swear you and your husband in now. You would
both swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful. >> I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> I also wanted to mention that we will have our engineer and architect join us as well. Um
I believe they should be on the Zoom call as well. Are >> are we hearing from the zoning officer anymore? We probably should have a recap of the case. Yeah, I was going to summarize my memo. Yeah, >> I just wasn't sure if you had questions
to ask of the applicants or not. >> No, >> Taylor, let me just swear you in for the evening. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Would the Would the board like Taylor to
go through the memo one more time? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, good evening, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Um, tonight you will hear uh testimony on 105 Mountain Avenue. Um, block 6804,
lots 1920 in the R2T zone. Um, owner and applicants are Walker, Risto, and Linu. Um, the applicants are requesting a C1 and C2 variance as well as a D4 F variance or an addition to an existing
dwelling located on the corner of Mountain A and Henderson. Um, the applicants are proposing a single floor addition to an existing dwelling. The addition is to accommodate the applicant's current family and to allow for their extended family to age
in place and a more accessible living space. Uh the property is not located within a locally designated historic district. Um again the subject property is located in the R2T zoning district and is subject to the use and bulk
regulations in accordance to T10B 264 253 255 and 255.1 of the former Princeton Township land use ordinance. The subject property is not compliant with respect to the
following bulk requirements. The lot area where the requirement is 65,340 ft. The existing is 10,720 ft. The lot width at the building line
where 175 ft is required. 46.71 ft is existing. The lot frontage where 175 ft is required. There's 47.03 feet to Mountain Avenue existing. Um the
building's front setback where 25 ft is required. 8.61 ft to Henderson A um is existing. The building side setback where 15 ft is required 2.92 feet towards lot 21 is
existing and the parking setback where the parking requirement is 25 ft 5.75 ft is existing. Um the project will require the firing
following C variance relief. Um the building setback to the front again where 25 is required. Um 11.3 ft is proposed to the rear porch, 13.5 ft
is proposed to the middle of the addition and 18.6 ft is proposed to the covered porch. Uh the height to setback ratio for those same setbacks are as follows. um where 1 to 1.5 is
required. There's 1 to 1.31 to the front roof, 1 to 1.28 to the mid roof, and 1 to 1.05 to the rear roof.
Again, building setbacks to the side of lot 21 where 15 ft is required. There's 3.8 8 ft to the proposed patio and then 12.5 ft to the proposed addition.
And again, those height to setback um ratios for the side lot line along lot 21 where 1.15 1 to 1.5 is required. 1.084
is proposed for the front roof 1 to 1.46 46 is proposed to the mid roof and 1 to 1.23 is proposed to that rear roof. And then the parking setback where 25 ft is required. We mentioned the existing is
5.75 and the proposed is 6 ft from Henderson Avenue. Uh the project will also require a D4 variance for the floor area ratio. The requirement is 23%.
The existing is 19.3 and the proposed is 31.36%. The subject property is located on a private road which we've mentioned. Um if the board is inclined to act favorably on this application, a condition should be imposed that
requires a legally valid easement agreement be submitted to the zoning office prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. And condition two. Additionally, um because this application consists of
lots 19 and 20, um we suggest that both the lots be consolidated into one deed. Um if the board has any questions, um feel free to ask. I'd be happy to answer.
>> Board members, any questions, Mr. Gri? >> Good job. Okay. um you may start your presentation. >> Thank you. I want to ask I believe our architect and engineer also on the call. Is this is a good time to bring them
into the meeting? >> So that's Miss Mueller and >> um Miller and Steve Drach. >> Steve Dra. Okay, Claudia, I see them in attendees. Meanwhile, I'm going to share my screen
and uh um >> can they sh uh raise their hand so I can see who it is? >> Can I proceed now? Pam, would you like this to be an exhibit? Shall we make this exhibit A1?
>> Yes, please. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Yep. ma'am. Do you want to wait for them to be brought over or do you want to begin? >> I I can I can I can go ahead and start. Okay. >> Thank you. So, I believe I'm sharing my screen. Hopefully, everybody can see the
slides. Again, my name is Lingu and sitting next to me, my husband, Walker Rest. We are owners applicants in this case representing ourself for the meeting. Um later on our engineer Katherine Miller and architect and Steve Draachi will also provide testimonial.
As uh Miss Griffin earlier mentioned the board if board is inclined to act in favorable on this application a condition needs to be imposed and we acknowledge and accept this condition.
So, if the board grants approval, we understand that no building permit will be issued until a legally valued easement agreement has be submitted to the zoning office. Over my presentation, I will um explain that we have had this
easement since we purchased the house. The previous owner have had this easement. So, we just needed to have this legally documented. This is um what is being currently required as a condition.
Okay. First let me first orient the audience to um the location and the lot conditions. As mentioned earlier, this is a non-conforming lot with 19 and 20 combined at the corner of Mountain and Henderson.
The existing house constructed more than a 100 years ago predates the current zoning regulations. Therefore, there are several pre-existing nonconformities. Most notably, the law space, which is
about 10,000 square ft, is severely sized for the R2 zone with only 16% of the required 65,000 square ft. The lot also has an exceptionally narrow
shape only 46 feet um in width in comparison to 175 required. The existing living space is about 2,000 square ft currently housing a family of four.
This relatively modest living space does not provide the privacy and the comfort needed to accommodate family members during extended stays. In addition, the elevation of the existing house, which is about 4 feet
above ground, prohibits people with limited mobility from accessing this house safely. We know that one of our parents, Walker's dad, is disabled. With our intention to host aging parents
for extended stays and to ensure their safety and well-being, we propose building a single floor addition at near ground level with age inclusive designs. Given the access challenges and a
pre-existing nonconformities, we're requesting C variances related to building setback, high setback ratio, and a parking setback and a D4 variance for an increased F building. This edition is a solution I
want to mention was informed by discussion with family members with our neighbors professionals on the team and most importantly by input from the Princeton zoning office. So thank you very much in advance.
Next I want to show a few site photos of the existing dwelling. We purchased this house in 2016. Since the purchase, we have made significant improvements while being also mindful of maintaining the original character of the house. This is
uh a front view of the house from Mountain Avenue featuring an open porch. Our proposed addition, as I will explain later, is designed to continue this architecture characteristics of the existing house.
And this is a side view of the house from Henderson Avenue showing the existing landscape along our entire property line which will remain and will not be altered due to the proposed
addition. This is another side view showing the existing parking area which will largely remain unchanged. The width of the driveway and row will stay the same.
The parking setback however will be slightly affected to allow for building a ground level house entry. We now have two kids. We love this house in the neighborhood. Over the years, friendship grows with the neighbors.
When our parents visit, they also become friends with our parents >> um with our neighbors. However, at the same time, we face severe several challenges, especially those related to
aging and the mobility needs. There is currently a long uncovered walkway from the parking area to the nearest house entrance. In addition, entering the house requires
climbing five exterior steps as the main level sits approximately 4 feet above ground. As we prepare for the next stage of our family life, welcoming all parents for extended stays and supporting their
aging related needs, we need a practical solution to address those challenges. and it will be and will believe that the proposed addition will provide the essential and age inclusive living space to accommodate the needs of of growing
family. As shown on the site plan on this slide, the area in the orange outline represents the existing two-story dwelling while the area in the black outline shows the proposed addition.
So you can see the proposed onestory addition is located located behind the existing twostory dwelling with little or no visual impact from Mountain Avenue.
It is also proposed near the center of the yard with the intention to minimize impacts of neighbors on both sides. There will be a bio retention basin currently highlighted in green but our
engineer will elaborate more later in her testimonial. The basin will be built to accommodate drainage issues and I wanted to highlight that um the entire building will remain as an owner
residing single family home. This is the view shows the east elevation of the proposed addition with existing house in the orange outline and the proposed addition in the blue outline
because the addition is designed as a single floor near ground level structure. As you can see it sits much much lower visually. The cathedral ceiling however is designed to enhance the appearance of
the addition from the street view. Our architect Dr. D Steve Dra will provide more details later on in his testimonial. Existing landscape as I show earlier in one of the site photos along Henderson will stay and will help screen the view
and help protect neighbors privacy. We do understand the proposed addition will have an impact on our neighbors on Henderson. on the right uh bottom right corner I I
showed an aside plan showing that our addition facing lot 13, lot 14 and the lot 15 especially lot 14 as the house belonging to lot 14 sits directly uh
across the proposed edition. So during our planning we discussed our plan with our neighbors on Henderson and received support from lot of them including owner of lot 14. Here I would like to again highlight
several age focused design elements. Our addition will include a corridor highlight in red about 300 square ft connecting the addition to the main house.
This corridor is designed to preserve our existing driveway. It also houses a landing and the stairs to allow the rest of the addition to be built at a near ground level for
improved safety. As you can see highlighted in yellow, existing parking to largely remain except that the death setback will be slightly reduced, making room for a covered porch that enhances the visual
appeal, remains consistent with the current house design and provides more convenient and uh um a more convenient entrance to the house. Highlight in blue is an existing deck
that will be removed. Generally speaking, the new design will provide improved access to the house by locating the entrance close to parking and at near ground level.
In addition to the corridor I just highlight earlier, which is uh highlight in red here, the addition will also include a family room in green outline about 300 square ft and a bedroom suite
in blue outline including a bedroom, a laundry room and a bathroom about 400 square ft in total. There will be there were two open porches highlighted in um purple outline to continue the
characters of the existing house. One also serves as a cover walkway connecting the parking to the addition. Well, these spaces are essential for ensuring the long-term success of
multi-generational living by allowing individual privacy and a personal space within the house. The single floor design again is necessated by our need to host aging parents with limited mobility.
The proposed combined floor area of the existing dwelling and the addition will be about 3,300 square ft. Can still be considered a modest mediumsiz home in Princeton.
There will be no addition driveway as we will continue to use the existing twocar parking space aiming to minimize the impact on parking traffic on Henderson. As elaborated above, all living space
including included in addition in the addition are critically needed for ensuring the safety and the well-being of senior family members during their extended stays. Our property space is severely
undersized for R2 zone. The permitted F for the property is 23%. Under this restriction, we are only permitted to build up build up to 400 square ft of new living space, which as
we have demonstrated is not nearly enough for the intended long-term use of the addition. Therefore, we would argue that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would create undue hardship
and deprive the owners of a reasonable use of the property, which is to host and care for senior family members. Granting requested variance will provide much needed relief with this undersized
lot. This is also the only financially viable option for us living in highcost areas like Princeton as we cannot afford to purchase additional properties in this
town. This is the end of my opening statement here. I'm going to give the floor to our engineer um Kathy Miller and she will continue
the presentation and for now I will stop sharing my screen because Kathy is going to share from her screen. >> Miss Mueller, we need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful?
I can't hear you. I don't Were you muted or am I the only one or can can anybody hear Miss Mueller? >> No. Okay, >> you're not here. >> No, Katis, maybe sometime leave and come
back in might might help. In the meanwhile, uh, Steve, would you mind go ahead and, uh, talk about your slides, Steve, your own note.
Hey, hold on. Where's Mr. Drochi? Tell you what, do you think that we could stop screen sharing for a moment? I just want to be able to swear in Mr. Drochi. And we need you need to unmute. >> Uh
Steve, on the left lower left corner, there is a microphone icon. If you can unmute yourself from there. >> There we go. >> Okay. >> Now, Mr. Duri, do you swear or affirm
your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. And if you would just advise the board of your uh license and credentials, please. >> Um well, um I'm 85 years old, so I've been at this for a long time.
>> Okay. >> I um I'm a graduate of Princeton University, both as a an undergraduate degree in architecture and an MFA in architecture back in 1965. I had a long uh uh commercial career, if
you will, primarily with the Hilly Group as a as a one of their leading design principles. And um since my retirement about 10 years ago, um I've been working with my son uh who's a builder um and we have done a number of residential
projects and small commercial projects. >> We'll accept you as a u as an expert. >> And Mr. Georgia, you're you're licensed in New Jersey, correct? >> Yes, I am. I'm sorry. >> All righty. And you're the architect of record for this project? >> Yes, I am. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Heavy, we still cannot hear you. >> So, well, what what should we let Mr. Droce? We'll let him testify and maybe Miss Mueller can work on the audio. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Is this uh Let's just see. So, why don't we make this exhibit uh A2? And these are elevations. Are there going to be more than one elevation? Uh yeah, I should point out that in your uh staff memo they said uh they reviewed three
sheets. Uh there's more like seven sheets in the actual presentation, although I probably won't use them all. >> Okay. Right. >> Um and I assume you can see the plan now, correct? >> Yep. >> Good. Um unfortunately, uh Lynn stole
most of my thunder, but I'll my job was to roll through this and explain the logic of it, so I'll try to do that. Um starting at the uh left end uh there's a stairwell and that stairwell is located
because we have to have um starting in here there's a kitchen in the existing house kitchen and little dining area and this is the wall for the kitchen. So this is the only place the furthest away from the property line that I could actually locate the addition. Ideally it would have been 15
feet but I think it's more like 13 feet. So that this this opening which will have a door in it will uh open out into a platform which will descend half a story uh down essentially to grade. Um they'll be one little step up you know to protect from water infiltration or
whatever. Um to um an entryway u which is also functioning with these closets as a as a mudroom. And this entryway has a door that is accessed from the parking out here via this this porch. Um, and there's
also a sliding glass door for people to come out of the house and onto the family patio in the back the back side of the house here. Um, continuing on, this is actually 3 uh 8
feet, I believe. And that line was set essentially by where we could have the parking to maintain the existing parking and not uh have any other issues with how that parking is arranged. Uh then starting here, there's a family room and
that family room is 15 ft wide by 20 ft long. It has a cathedral ceiling with a with a ridge running in this direction and that's intended for use by the family and also by uh the the guests the
uh elderly family here. Uh they have access this way and the the u the family from the house has access this way. So this is a nice gathering area for both. Um, proceeding on,
there's um another covered porch out here that has an entrance here that uh comes in off of off of the uh the outside yard. And it has its own little corridor. And that corridor has a laundry uh on it as
well as a bath with a a nice u walk-in shower. Um, and it also has closets here. And then there's another volume here, which is the bedroom for the guests or or for the the grandparents in
this case. Um, the the um hallway here with doors at both ends. U really provides some nice privacy back here for for the grandparents uh when the kids are playing in here uh if they're not going to join them. Um, and this bedroom
has a sliding glass door out to a smaller, much smaller private patio here for them to be able to go outside. So, there's a logic to this scheme that actually works pretty well and that there's a connection of the joint space and then the private space
for the for the guests. So, how to make something out of that that's architectural. Um, that's what I was trying to do here. Um, and I had two volumes here, the the family room and the bedroom. And I decided to make a
third one here for the stair. So, this has um fixed glass in the this triangle at the top which is above eye level. So, this provides a lot of daylight both for the kitchen and for uh the corridor. um
and um it has the same slope as the slopes for these other um uh cathedral ceiling elements. Then there's the glass corridor. Um and then there's the family room with some small windows
that do face down onto the onto the uh Henderson Avenue. Um, and then there's another glass gorder with the door. And then the bedroom actually is solid on this wall. Um, but does have fixed glass
in the in the gable ends just as this one does. Tying it all together, having these three nice little volumes is a porch that goes across the front here and another porch that goes across the front here. Although this one is further
forward. This one is uh recessed a little bit. Uh the ins and outs of these volumes I think add a lot of interest to this but still keep this very low relative to the uh the the neighbors who
mostly have twotory houses down the road here. The back um is much simpler. Um and the intent here was to provide as much visual privacy for the neighbor as we could by not
having a lot of windows along the backside. So we have these high windows here which are well above eye level. Um there is this sliding glass door that goes out onto the patio, but in this general area is where uh the neighbor's garage is. Um, so, um, these sliding
glass doors are actually looking out on behind his his, um, his garage into the small grass area he has back there. But there are no other windows at all. Uh, this this space here is where the uh,
bathroom and the laundry are. And then of of course there's again this the bedroom which does not have low windows but it continues to to have this uh high gable glass. Um the the uh rear end is pretty
self-explanatory. It's just the sloped roof with the the sliding glass door out onto the patio. And here's a section through the entire um dwelling. uh edition that shows coming out of the kitchen down the
stairs and then down these stairs into the basement. Um so that's this is just actually a pretty nice stair there. There is a neglected to mention there's a Bilco hatch that provides this access now and it's being destroyed as a result
of where this addition falls, but this will make it a much nicer uh access to the basement. Uh then there's the foyer, the um cathedral ceiling for the family room, another flat roof here. These are acting as separators as I said for the
the other design elements. And then a section to complete the u um tour is the the bedroom with its glass in the gables.
roof just shows the roof plan with the various ridges, the flat roofs, and the slope roof for the u stair. So, that's pretty much it. Um the the um cathedral ceilings do exceed u
the 12 foot mark um near the top. And so I included in my calculations um those areas as F. Other than that, the F I think was pretty straightforward. So that in in summary is is my presentation. I'll be happy to answer
any questions or >> I have um I have one question. With all the emphasis on aging in place and the comfort of the grandparents long term, how do somebody who is unable to
maneuver stairs can they can't get from the addition to the main house? >> Can I answer this question? >> Sure. >> We intent we intend this to be a single family house. We have only one kitchen
will be in the main existing dwelling. We welcome our parents to stay but given the existing condition of the lot size of elevation of the house we feel that building addition at a near ground level
without some necessity. So instance, a kitchen will meet majority of the needs for housing um senior family members. >> They don't have access to a kitchen.
>> Well, no, no, there what you're saying is absolutely true, but u the um the stair has solid walls on it, which would allow us to put a sh a chairlift on either one of these to to give them access to the whole house. and they're
very short run, so they'd be relatively inexpensive. Actually, >> that's obviously it's your decision. And I just find it unusual emphasizing this generational divide here that uh that there's no
because it appears to me in that in that connector that you would have the space to put a to do something a ramp in there or something to allow people to move without going. But again,
that's your call. I just find it a little strange. >> You would find that the calculations for the ramps are surprisingly long. Um I don't think you could actually get ramps um in this 38t length with the
clearances for um platforms at the front and the back and all the rest of it. >> Is it is it 4 foot change in grade between the house and the addition? >> Yes, it is. Right. >> So you need a 48 foot ramp, >> right? with a with a platform
>> platform. And again, it's your decision, but you could you could get a switch back in there. It's it's up to you. It's it's um that's your call, but you could make it work in there in my opinion.
Okay, that's fine. That was my question. U do you have anything else to add, Mr. Rocky. >> No, I've uh I think I've I've um answered the question as best I could. >> Yeah, you did. I think actually architecturally I think it's a very
pleasing shape and form. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Okay. Um board members, any questions of the architect? Steve, I I have a question about the application. Um, I don't know if it gets
addressed I don't know who it gets addressed to, but is this considered an ADU? >> No. >> No. Well, I I'll let Lynn answer that because the the germ of the idea was
ADU, but uh we were informed that we really couldn't do that because we needed another access off of Anderson and it just wasn't going to happen. So, that devolved into this design. >> Yes, as Steve said, this entire
structure will consider as a single family housing, not an ADU. So, we're building an addition, not building an ADU. >> And we intentionally did not put a kitchen in this little service area u to
underline that fact. >> Okay. All right. Um, so then if we were to approve it, it it would it would say something along the lines of this is this is not an ADU. So, you know, 20
years from now, >> it's not >> it's not going to be an ADU. >> No, it will be essentially a freestanding unit, which would means it would have to be on its own little piece of property with setbacks. And it gets pretty complicated pretty fast, I think.
Taylor, I I can we stop sharing the screen? I don't know who's sharing right now. There we go. Taylor, in Princeton, an ADU can be attached. Is that correct? >> That's correct.
>> Okay. So, but this would not be considered an ADU, right? >> No, we do not intend this to be an ADU. >> No, I understand. But I I was directing that to our zoning officer.
That's correct, Karen. >> So, in theory, this could be a single family house and you can add an ADU in the future >> if the bulk requirements allowed it. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. Say that again, please.
Taylor, >> if the bulk requirements allowed for that. >> Exactly. Exactly. But the way we constructed this. Sorry. Go ahead. >> No, no, please. >> No. >> As we envision this to be a single
family house. We did not put in a kitchen. We only put in the living quarter and add the corridor that connects those two structure. So I can consider to be an addition. The main use of the addition as well as
the entire house is to bring everybody in the family together for extended stay. So grandparents can spend more time with grandkids. When be some of the grandparents have to travel overseas to visit here. When they
come they stay for a couple of months. Our current condition make it very difficult to host those long-term stays. You just answered my question. I was wondering what kind of long-term stays and where you were talking about because
you were asking for an awful lot of variances or something. And I was wondering, are we talking one week, a month, two weeks, a year? >> Yeah. >> Or whatever. And you're you're saying several months at a time. >> Mhm. Yes. So for instance, when my
parents travel, they will travel here overseas. So typically they stay for three months in a at a time. Walker's parents both retired or one is about to retire. And Walker, do you want to say a little bit about your parents?
>> Sure. Um they're divorced. Uh one lives a few states away. Uh she would typically stay for a week or so. Uh my father lives in Minnesota. Um he stays usually for a couple weeks and they both
come more frequently than Lynn's parents who come once a year, maybe once every two years. And Mr. Cohen, to going back to what you said about, you know, the stair access to the kitchen, it's my father who's disabled. He has a prosthetic leg. Um
he's somewhat mobile still. I mean, he doesn't use a wheelchair. He can move freely, but you know, some days are good. You He's not in a lot of pain. Um, some days are not good. And so, we envision that he could still access the kitchen on the good days, but some days he might not want to. Um, the rest of
our parents right now are in very good health and so we would anticipate the stairs not being an obstacle for them to access the kitchen. >> I have a question for the architect. Uh
the the addition is 85 feet long, plus or minus a foot or so. And uh the the biggest portion of that is that hallway that goes to the family room. Did you have to do that strictly because of the parking? Because you
can't >> only because of the parking. I'm sorry. At the other end, you couldn't cut that out and park at the back of the unit. Is that >> No. Um um your staff was very clear that we had to keep the the parking access
exactly where it is mainly because of all this >> yes >> stuff with with the >> and so but that necessitated a 38 foot hall. >> Yeah. I I started out at 28t. >> Okay.
I mean, I find 85 feet to 85 by 15 to be a very long addition. Very kind of odd shape. It >> is. It's It's totally dictated by the logic of the site and the location of the parking. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Please continue. >> Good. Do do you think Miss Mueller will be able to uh resolve the audio? >> Can you can you hear me through the iPhone that's on here? >> Oh, yes, we can. That's great.
Excellent. Uh well, let's swear you in. Do you swear from your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful. >> Yes, I do. >> All righty. And then do you want to uh share with the board your licensing and credentials? >> Sure. I have a bachelor's of science in
civil and environmental engineering from Clarkson University. I'm a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is in good standing. I'm the principal and owner of Mueller Engineering. Um we've gone through some name changes, but I've been at that firm
for 25 years. Um and purchased it in 2020 fully. I've testified before Princeton, I believe, when it was split. I'm not sure if I've been in front of the board since this combined, but I've
testified in front of dozens of towns including West Windsor. My office is in Warren and the surrounding towns in Somerset, Union, and Mercer counties. >> We'll accept you as an expert, please. >> And Miss Miller, you're the engineer of record, correct? >> That's that's correct.
>> All right. Thank you. >> So, if I may, I'd like to share my screen. The plans I have up on the screen are what were submitted to the township as or municipality as part of the Can you everybody see my screen?
>> We can. Do you want to make this an exhibit? >> No, these are the same that were submitted. They're unaltered. Uh last revised 21026. >> Okay. >> So, you've heard a lot of testimony. Everybody's did part of my job. I'll give you the quick overview just so we
can get the lay of the land. You've heard a lot about this existing lot known as lot 19 and 20, the corner lot of Henderson and Mountain Avenue, an existing single family home facing Mountain Mountain Avenue. The lot is
very deep and narrow. It's about 239 ft deep with an average depth of only 45 ranging from 42 in the rear to the widest point of 47 towards Mountain Avenue. So, and you've also heard that
it's under sized at 10,720 ft in a 65 340 square foot zone. So when we apply the setbacks per the strict zoning it's required to have a 25- f foot setback along Henderson considered
a front yard and 15 ft to the side which is adjacent to 21 and 29 and 15 in the back. So with an average of 45 ft if you were to apply a 25 foot setback and a 15t sideyard setback leaves you a
five-ft building envelope. So, a number of the um existing conditions are pre-existing and nonconforming. And I'll explain why we have numerous other and new variances um per the interpretation of the zoning
officer. So, I'm going to go to sheet two, which we have two different layouts. The site dimension up top and some grading down below. I'll start with the site
dimension. As Steve has given ample information as to why we've designed the building this way, it's to maintain the existing driveway. One prior submission that we had had a second driveway which was removed due to feedback from not
only the zoning officer but also the neighbor across the street. So, we did a lot to maintain the two spots that we have. There's a proposed patio in the back, the covered porches which you've heard, and a patio off the back. One element
that we haven't spoken about is there is a detached shed currently on the site. I just This will be better. So, we're asking some for some preexisting nonconforming dimensional setbacks for that shed as
well as part of the application. It's located in the front yard, as you can see by this dotted line through the middle of the lot. If we put the setbacks on here, we get this very
narrow, deep rectangle where where any amenities are really allowed to be by zone. So, I just wanted to touch on that. It hasn't been spoken to yet. We've done preliminary grading on the
lower portion of this plan. We do I intend to agree and if the board were to vote favorably on the application, we will submit a full lot grading plan for approval by your engineering department
and review of the full zoning. Um, we will do storm water management in compliance with Princeton regulations. I've done a lot of storm water designs in Princeton municipality for some of uh
Steve's projects and also another engineering firm that does projects locally. So, I'm very familiar with those. I'm confident in what we've sketched out here. We'll do soil testing for storm water management. So, what I'd really like to do is focus
on the zoning. You've heard that we have a number of variances pre-existing. So, I'm just going to go through the zoning table as it's shown on the plan. You've heard that we're undersized in lot area. We're unders sized in lot width. Our lot depth
exceeds the 239 uh exceeds the 175 required. And the frontage again for the long rectangular lot, we meet the lot frontage on Henderson while we're deficient and pre-existing along
Mountain Avenue at 47.03. Front yard setbacks. You have heard that we are deficient currently along Henderson Avenue in the back right rear corner at 8.61.
During the zoning review, how the addition was analyzed was segmental because we have the long narrow portion of the hallway. We have the common living area which is widens out and the
bedroom in the back. All three segments were analyzed per the zoning. So, if you were to put a house on a property, typically it's measured to the nearest point. But what we've done here per feedback from the zoning
officer is analyzed all three. So when we asked for three front yard setbacks relative to Henderson, those are for each individual segment of the building. So rather than one variance, we're
asking for three. So that's where the variances become numerous, but it's still just for the one structure. And again, 25 is required as you've heard due to the lot shape. It's just unachievable for a 5 foot wide house. So
to the rear porch, which is this is considered the rear porch, we're proposing 11.3 ft still exceeding the 8.61, which is the goal to narrow this down to not have it as impactful as we can. to the middle
edition where 13.5 proposed and then to the covered porch and in our zoning off um zoning chart we've clarified adjacent to the existing house is proposed to be 18.6. So those are three new variances which
we are seeking. The front yard to Mountain Avenue is complying and there's no improvements that will change that. the sideyard. This is the western portion of the
property adjacent to lot 21 and 29. Again, we're requesting three setback variances for I'm sorry, two setback variances for the sideyard.
We have the existing at 2.92. We've requested or identified a setback variance to the patio at 3.8 at this point. And then the main structure at its nearest is 12.5
ft setback. So those are the three those are the setbacks adjacent to the sideyard. And you've heard some testimony about the neighbor's garage. You could see the proximity where the bulk of it is where our proposed patio is. So, we've really
tried to put our living space adjacent to the garage. Continuing along the zoning table, the minimum rear yard required is 15. Even with the deep addition uh would still be 65.7
from the rear yard. the accessory detached shed which is to remain again we have a pre-existing non-conforming because it's technically in the front yard relative to Henderson
the side and rear yard it is compliant so you've heard a lot about what we're trying to put on the lot basically a house addition sized but I think one key element here is we're still compliant with the
impervious coverage So we're not overbuilding it. A lot of these variances are relative to the undersized and the two front yard setbacks. So we're allowed up to 49.5. Existing is 31.83 and we're proposing
4367 which is compliant. The building height by distance and height, vertical distance is compliant. And that's the main house. As you've heard, we've also kept the height down on the addition.
We have pre-existing setback ratios to height. So, what is required for the height is a is a secondary calculation. Um, for every 1 foot in height, it's required to be 1 and 1/2 ft
setback or 1 and 1/2 ft from the property line. So one foot up, one and a half from the property line, two feet up, three feet from the property line. So we've calculated all of those ratios with a lot of help from your former zoning officer, Derek. And we've
identified three new variances associated with the setback from Henderson Avenue. Again, it's for the one addition analyzed in three segments. one for the front edition, the mid roof
addition, and the rear roof addition. 1.15 is required. We're proposing 1.31, 1.21, and 1.05. These are also applied to the sideyard. So again, this is adjacent and relative
to lot 21 and 29. Those requested variances again split into three. Right now it's nonconforming as low as 68. We're proposing 1.31, 1.28.
Oop, sorry, I'm reading the wrong ones. The existing one story is as low as 27 and 04. Our proposed addition ratios are 1 to.84,
1.46. 46 slightly below allowable. And then in the rear86 the rear yard we're compliant again. We still have because of the depth of the lot those all comply. The floor area
ratio allowed is 23. We're asking for 3136. It's approximately 897 square ft over what's allowed. Um, as you've heard, we've tried to minimize the area for the new addition. Uh, it's
the length for the parking. Uh, we're allowed one driveway per lot. We're not We, one of our original submissions, we were asking for two and in discussions, we removed that variance. There's a maximum width of the driveway
at the street and maximum width of the driveway at the rightway line. 14 at the street, but it must narrow down to 10 by the time you get to the right ofway. As you've seen by the prior pictures, it's a twocar wide driveway. So, we have left
that unchanged. At the street, it's 19.65 and at the rightway, it's 19.97. This is not an oversized driveway for two cars with opening your doors. Um, so
we left that pre-existing. The front yard setback is an interesting one. We're going from 5.75 ft setback down to 6 without changing our driveway.
So how that is measured is if you have an 18t spot, how much room is between that 18t spot and the right of way? So, because we're shortening up a bit of the driveway with the covered porch, that is a required variance. It is not
due to any construction of new driveway. We're not putting more driveway closer to Henderson. It is just mathematical per the ordinance. So again, you can see that they're all these P's were pre-existing,
non-conforming due to the age of the house and the current zoning. And then the majority of our new variances are relative to setbacks which are unattainable due to the narrowness of the property and then the height which I
believe Mr. Drai and and Msgu have given a lot of information as to how we've really tried to minimize the heights of this structure while also providing architectural character so it'll be appealing to the neighbors.
So that's that's about it on the um engineering. There is one tree to be removed uh that's central to the property. Um, it's in poor condition now and we've tried to, there's a couple
other mature trees on the site. We've graded and did limited disturbance um to not impact those trees, to not clearcut those trees. Everybody wants shade on their patio. It's a detriment to the neighbors. It's also a detriment to the applicant. So, we've really taken
close look at the grading. You see from a number of spot shots to not impact those trees with the construction impervious coverage the total increase is 1268. Anything over 400 requires major storm water per state regs in
Princeton which we are aware of and we don't have any concern um with meeting those regulations. We'll do soil tests etc. So, that's the engineering. Um, I hope I added some more extra information than
what you've heard. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Ma'am, just just for clarification, is it your testimony then that the site can accommodate the increased blur area ratio? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And can you elaborate on that? Just explain why. >> Sure. So, it's a onestory addition as you've heard. It's a long addition to keep the the parking, but the key element here, obviously, we can't meet setbacks, which is always a nice
indicator that you're not overdeveloping the site, but we're not exceeding the impervious coverage allowed for this site size of a lot. So, I think that's a very important zoning criteria that that we were that we are meeting that we're
actually under. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Board members, any questions of the engineer? >> I have one. Um, it's it the and maybe this is inappropriate. The the right the
Henderson rightway. Uh, in a photograph that Ms. do showed there was a dense planting buffer that she said would remain. Is that within the Henderson rightway and the
the existing house or is it all where is it? >> Uh it's in between the walkway and the edge of pavement. So on my screen right here, you can see that existing walkway which you saw a picture of and this dash
line is the edge of pavement. So it is >> that's in the rightway. >> It is partially in the right ofway. Yep. The we didn't survey where the stems were, but I would assume that they're either on the right ofway line or in the right of way.
>> And maybe this is this Henderson is not a public street. It's a private street as I understand it. and it's subject to some litigation as it moves past your property
or is so the so the planting buffer is subject to whatever this whole litigation issue is with the rightway >> I would assume so I'm not privy to the
lawsuit or the premise of it. >> Okay. Well, I guess I guess at the onset you indicated you you the applicant that the approval is going to be contingent upon getting the rightway issue resolved
and then our engine our municipal engineer would review it all and make a determination. >> Is that right? >> Correct. Okay. >> Okay, that was it. So, it doesn't it doesn't need to be answered right now.
Okay, that was it. All right. Are there um any other questions of the architect, the owner, or the engineer right now? Okay. Miss Goo, are you do you have any more witnesses?
Uh I do not have any more witnesses. Later in the public comment session, some of my our neighbors might join the conversation. But I do have a few more slides I would like to use conclude our
presentation. >> Okay, please. >> And Miss Goo, this is all part of your exhibit A1, the the exhibit we started with. Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yes. So finally, we wanted to argue that the
building of the addition promotes affordability and inclusiveness, preserves historic characters of the neighborhood, and contributes to the public good. We understand that Princeton strives to be a more
affordable inclusive community and the one aspect of inclusiveness is to welcome people of all ages and health conditions. There will believe our proposed tailored to the needs of seniors is aligned with this long-term
vision of Princeton. We believe it benefits the larger community to have more houses in Princeton that are built or modified with careful consideration of the needs of people of all ages, including seniors.
Furthermore, upgrading our existing house can also help further diversify Princeton's housing stock, making our town better suited for future multi-generational households. So, in addition to serving our needs, it could
potentially benefit future owners who share the needs of caring for older family members. Lastly, our house is located in a very walkable uh neighborhood. It is on the
municipal shuttle route and next to uh Mountain Lake Nature Preserve close to the municipal center, the CP pool walkable to downtown. Princeton master plan encourages modification and
retrofitting houses near town or transit to accommodate diverse family needs. Allowance of the proposed addition will not change the character of the house or more broadly the neighborhood. We believe our proposal demonstrates a
balance of preserving historical integrity and meeting the demand of diversifying housing needs. Very quickly, I want to mention that beyond Princeton and across New Jersey, there has been an increased awareness of
housing planning to accommodate facilitate multigenerational households. This is a draft of the New Jersey state plan. The draft state plan advocates for age friendly housing options. Therefore,
encourages the building of multi-generation households to support families and those working from home. Hence, the draft plan recommends the zoning barriers be removed to create opportunities for multi-generational
living. The benefits of this kind of a housing um multi-generational uh housing model are also supported by a growing body of academic research. see a few cited here. Taken together, those studies show that
multi-generational living is becoming increasingly common and it can offer meaningful benefits for older adults and families. Overall, these findings support a value of home designs that
make multi-generation living safer, more practical, and more sustainable. This is our last slide. So to summary, we propose adding critically needed living space to accommodate extended
stays by senior family members. The addition incorporates age focused design that will allow that would allow seniors to live safely and comfortably at home. It will continue the architectural characteristics of the
existing dwelling, helping preserve the character of the neighborhood. It will remain it will maintain the entire residence as an owner occupied single family home. We're not building an addition. We're not building an ADU.
Recognizing the implications of the requested zoning variance, we have made every effort to minimize impacts on the neighborhood and are seeking only the variance necessary to meeting our needs.
Because the lot extraordinarily undersized and existing house presents significant age and mobility related challenges. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would prevent us from reasonably using the property to host
and care for family members. We believe that in this case the benefits of granting the requested variance substantially outweigh any potential detriments. And finally, the proposed addition would
contribute to a more inclusive community by supporting multigenerational living, diversifying Princeton's housing stock, and preserving the character of the neighborhood. Thank you all for listening. Okay.
Um board members, um any questions of the applicant, the architect, the engineer right now. Okay, we're going to open open this up
to the public for public comment. Um, Miss Goo, you can I think you've done it already, but do you want to say one more thing before we go into uh the public portion? You're more than welcome to do that. >> Yes. I just wanted to mention that we
shared our plan with a lot of neighbors um received support from lot of them and our neighbor Carl is uh has agreed to u to speak during public comments. hopefully um he will get a chance to
talk. Our neighbor um John Grochi will also speak in support of our case. So we really appreciate all the support neighbors are showing for us and uh um and also for the opportunity by the
board for us to present our case to the board. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this point, we're going to open this hearing up to the public. If there's anyone in the public who'd like to speak, please indicate that by pushing the raise your
hands button on the bottom of the screen and we will recognize you. Claudia, has anyone indicated they'd like to speak to this application? >> Yes, Kathy Stillow. >> Okay. Ma'am,
>> I'm sorry. Great. Am I Am I on? >> You are. Uh, we need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> And do you feel comfortable giving us your address? >> 15 Henderson Avenue.
>> Great. Thank you very much. >> I'm sorry. I'm calling in from Italy. It's 3:00 a.m., so it's a little uh it's a little bit difficult, but um thanks for the opportunity to speak. I own lot 15 that you saw the plans that's directly across from the proposed
structure um and Walker and Lynn's property. In general, I very much welcome ADUs and more density in Princeton. I have lived here for 23 years and I plan to age in place in my house and stay. It's a
1.5story house which is just 1,212 square ft. >> So um the view from my front windows and I brought Lynn over and we looked out is currently the their backyard. There's a
trampoline there now. Um and that's where the new structure is proposed. Henderson is a very small road. We all impact each other a lot. So my real concern and the only one I have Lynn and Walker are aware of this is just the
parking. Um uh the structure is essentially going to behave as an ADU which was originally you know the germ of the idea as the architect said and I get that. I think you know that you can't build an ADU
because then you'd have to improve the road or some something. But whether it's called an ADU or it's called an addition, it's still whether it's this family or surely future owners will want to rent it. Um and you know the
structure is going to be separate from the main house in a way in which that dynamic is sure to play out at some point. Um, I plan on living here for a long time. Uh, so I imagine seeing that
dynamic play out. Um, I just also feel it's important to note that while Lyn and Walker's parents are the focus of this, and I get that I have uh family
members as well who I might need to have come live with me at one point. I'm really sensitive to the aging in place issued for myself and for my own family. and I get it for this family and I I want to help them be able to do that.
And yet at the same time, there's just the reality that this could be rented if this family needs more income in the future or any future owners want and need to create more income. And so
back to parking. So if we're going to build a 1290 ft structure, it's surely going to need parking either with this family or future, you know, owners. And
um the original design that Lynn brought to me, we were looking at has had parking right in front of my house. And this current design that you've seen tonight has eliminated that. I think we heard that from the engineer as well. And and I get that the issues with the
road about easements and the litigation that 25 Henderson has brought against all the neighbors are driving that issue around can you create new parking off the road. But essentially that's going
to have to happen with a 1290 square foot building. And what I don't want is for the board to approve what we see now and then for parking to just happen by driving the car into the backyard and
parking it at the end of this structure which is right in front of the slider for the bedroom which is literally right in front of my front door. Why not increase and expand the current parking? So I've discussed this with Lynn as well. So, that's really what I'm asking
is that the board require that additional parking is specifically added and approved now so that it doesn't just happen after the fact and be put next to the bedroom. Um, uh, I see that with the current design
that the impact to increase the current parking from it's only two spots. They have kids, you know, they're going to need more cars in the future. Um, if you expand the current parking, I know Lynn's concern was that then this
long corridor would be pushed out even further and I think there's an F issue. I mean, at,290 ft of a total addition, it feels like they have plenty of room to play with there. Again, my house is only,2 ft, so I'm sensitive to that. Um, but
also I'm concerned about the landscaping, which was mentioned earlier. So, I really would would ask the zoning board to make some sort of requirement. I don't know how you do that, that the landscaping cannot be removed and no new parking can be added
without zoning board approval. I'd really prefer that it's it's planned and approved now because I don't know how enforcement works later. Um, as you can see, I'm not a professional in this area. I work in healthcare.
But um another consideration is that Mountain Avenue is at the Henderson area um designated as a historic district. So once you combine lots 19 and 20, you now
have you know only Mountain Avenue as um the front the frontage and it's part of a historic district. So that's really what I wanted to request and ask of the ZO zoning board was really to be
sensitive to how parking impacts the neighbors and to be clear that such a large additional structure whether it's an ADU or it's an addition whatever terminology we want to use will surely require
the people who are using it um whether it's now and certainly in the future to have parking specifically designated. And like we said in the beginning of the meeting, the only access that this house has with frontage on Mountain is on
Henderson Avenues and that parking is going to have to end up on Henderson Avenue. Um I'm available for any questions and I really appreciate your time and consideration. >> Board members, any questions of the neighbor?
I just I I this isn't a question for you, but it seems to me that a lot has to a lot of this determination of what's going to happen here is based on ultimately what happens with the
disposition of Henderson. So, I think in anything we do, if we're going to approve this, we've got to qu we've got to put something in the resolution that talks to um how this whole Henderson
outcome will affect any approvals we give and what happens when that happens or if it happens, how we'll react to that and and changes possibly. which is uh I agree with the neighbor
that's that's an important factor. Okay. Um Claudia, is there anyone else who'd like to speak on behalf of this application? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have Mr. Clark. No, Carl Burns.
>> Could I could I say something quickly that just occurred to me about the parking? Um um I wish I wish I were there right now so I could really see, you know, like kind of walk around and have a good better sense, but um I'm
wondering um is still Stillow if you or my one what you would think, but I also just generally am wondering if um additional parking were stipulated now,
which I mean seems sensible to me. um h how we could be sure that that wouldn't that there wouldn't still be more parking happening in the back where you think it might just end up and I I don't
know how to that would be fixed >> and and I I don't know how to do that right now either and um so I think we'll try to if if we're leaning towards a resolution of this we'll try to put some wording
in the in the resolution that speaks to changes from this plan. There is no additional parking proposed now and I don't think we want to we can't actually initiate that. So I think
we can speak to the potential change later but not much more than that right now. C >> could I just ask a procedural question and I really don't know. So, but how would that work? If it's not pre-planned now with the design, new parking,
how could that be enforced after the fact or many years down the road with, you know, additional cars just driving into the backyard beyond the the bedroom. So, >> oh, you know, it's it's it's really hard
to say, but there's no there's no plan right now to add any additional cars. If if in some in the future people start to park where they shouldn't park, then
if if the board if the municipality is aware of this, then they'll take action to resolve it. >> Okay. I I didn't realize that that was possible. It sounds to me like that's a much harder scenario for the neighbors
to tolerate what versus having it pre-planned and approved now. >> There's nothing to pre-plan. They've not proposed anything and so there's nothing there's nothing to discuss.
Taylor, wouldn't additional parking, I'm not sure where it could go on the site, but wouldn't that require additional variance relief now? >> Probably for impervious coverage. >> Yeah. And I was going to to add to the enforcement question that you were asking is that um if our office was made
aware that there was a parking, you know, there was parking happening where it wasn't previously approved, that would go into imperous coverage that would, you know, it would it would trigger a a zoning violation essentially of something that wasn't approved and we
would refer back to the conditions of the approval if it was, you know, in the conditions of the approval. If not, it would have to meet the current zoning standards. >> So if they were >> Makes >> sense.
>> Could I just one more question? So impervious coverage I think means um gravel. Is that right? >> Yeah. Any any coverage on the lot. >> Okay. But what if you just drive onto the grass?
>> It's it the idea as M. Griven said if they are if additional PE if parking is taking place on that lot where it's not approved it would be subject whether it's on the grass or on paving that's
not previously approved it would be subject to municipal action. >> That is correct. >> Okay. I appreciate hearing that. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Good.
Okay, Claudia, can you um allow the next person to speak? >> Mr. Burns, can you come on, please? So, mute yourself. >> Okay, >> we can't see you. Mr. Burns, can you turn on your video?
>> Uh, I'm looking for that. >> Okay. Start share. >> Generally, where there's an audio button, next to it is a video button. >> Got it. I think >> there you are. Great. Uh, Mr. Burns, I
need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes. >> And do you feel comfortable giving us your address? >> Uh, sure. It's 30 Henderson Avenue. >> Great. Thank you very much.
>> Your comment. >> Uh, yeah. Let's see. I am uh as I just stated, I live on Henderson and I'm friends. I've
known uh one member of Linen Walker's family, uh Walker's father, uh who lives in Minnesota, uh for about six years now. And I've known the whole family. I've I've met
um I've met them all. And I guess the the point I want to add to all of the content that's been developed already is just that um I
appreciate a lot the uh the whole intent of a multigenerational household and um and I enjoy the family that I've gotten to know of uh Lyn and Walker. family.
Um, and that that's really the nugget of the only thing that I can really add. Um, I grew up in Trenton uh till the age of 13 or so. And I've
lived in Princ I've lived in Princeton about half of my life uh more than 40 years. Um, and I've enjoyed some other places as well, which I won't list. Um, but I just think the multigenerational
aspect of this proposal is is terrific and it'll be useful in the future. And um, I think that's that's what I wanted to say. >> Okay. >> And I if you have any questions of me,
I'm happy to answer them. Board members, any questions of Mr. Burns? >> Mr. Burns, thank you very much. >> Okay, Claudia, >> you're welcome. Is Claudia, is there anyone else who'd like to comment on
this application? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. One second. Is uh John D. Hi, >> sir. Can we get your Could we get your full name, please? >> Sure. It's uh Jonathan Drai.
>> All right. And Mr. Drai, uh could you give us your address, please? >> Uh 11 Henderson Avenue. >> Thank you. And do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? Uh yes. >> Thank you.
>> So uh I just wanted to rise in uh support of this application. I'm the neighbor across the street. Um I've known Lyn Walker for a long time also just like Carl. Um and I also believe that the uh multigenerational aspect of
what they're trying to do is uh very beneficial. Um, I also believe that the uh the zoning density that uh only helps the the the town in general
um meaning that it reduces the urban sprawl and so on um by allowing people to use their properties um in in ways that make sense. Um they don't have exactly the the configuration to do a
proper ADU. Um I don't either as someone on a very small lot across the street. My lot my lot's about I think it's actually smaller than Cathy's um in terms of its size. Um so um I believe in the uh the concept of the ADU and and
this is a unique way to do it. Um, it's a pretty simple one structure, uh, one-story structure and, uh, from the neighbor directly across the street, I look out right onto it. Um, I I have no
problem with, uh, with this, uh, going forward. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> I have a question for him, >> please. >> Sure. >> John, are you at all concerned about the parking issues?
Uh, no. The the the you know, we've been I've lived I man I think I've lived had that house for 20 plus years now. And um I've never really had issues with people parking uh on on you know and I' I've
never experienced that of of any issues with parking. Um, it certainly would be um I think they may if there was a way to to to get a a a
spot that that that certainly would be beneficial. Um the coverage issue I think could be taken care of through um you know I I work in Princeton and on on houses in Princeton and we've done driveways with geoexiles and other
things to um reduce the impervious coverage um and so on. So I think there's certainly a solution that could be easily found there. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Any more questions of this witness? Not witness but neighbor. Okay, Claudia. Anyone else? >> There are no more hands raised. >> All right. Um at this point we'll
conclude the public portion of the test of the hearing and um we will go into executive session in a moment but Miss Scu do you want to say anything more before we go into executive session.
>> Yes. I just want to say a few thank you to the neighbor neighbors for showing up and thank you Kathy for sharing your concern. We chatted before um on the parking issue. Um as you can see over
the years when our parents visit they have not be driven cars. Um and when we are also have been very mindful of the parking traffic situation on Henderson. So when kids are drop off
for play day, we also often make it parking very short or on the other side of street or mountain. So I I know this is something uh that you are concerned of but this is certainly not our intention to uh bring additional car to
Henderson because we know this is a private narrow street. Everybody um is um have limited parking space. So but thank you for sharing your concern. Also I wanted to mention Walker prepared a speech but he did not me finish during
co Walker's dad Mark stayed here for six months and we enjoyed his stay. The kids enjoyed spending time with grandparent but also during t time we realized the limited living space in our current
house cannot make this long-term arrangement long-term and a beneficial and sustainable. That is another motivation for us to adding more living space. So when we actually welcome in to stay with us, it will be sustainable and
it be meant for successful and it can be a long-term solution for families. So again, thank you so much for listening. >> All right. Uh at this point, we'll go into executive session. Um board members
raise any concerns, any discussion we want to have or does someone want to make a motion? I I have some questions. Couple questions I guess. Uh one for Taylor.
Um you know this addition is 1,290 square ft. I was wondering, do you know if, and I know they're not, if it was an ADU being built on this property,
what the maximum by code could be, you know, cuz it's relative to the existing house, I believe. >> Um, it would be 25% of the square footage of the principal dwelling or 800
square foot. And then again, there are exemptions within the code for allowable floor area over that. >> And the principal dwelling, does anybody
know what what size that is and what 25% of that is? >> Off the top of my head, no. Um, >> what is the >> 2300 square feet? I think
>> the current square ft is 2072 square ft. >> 27 >> 2072 >> 2072 >> 2072. So Michael, it probably be a little over 500 square ft would be the allowable
ADU. >> And then again with exemptions to the floor area. >> Yeah. Um, >> well, wouldn't it be the 800 because it's whichever is larger, right? So, it would be the 800. >> Yeah,
>> good, good point. So, so we're talking 800 compared to 1290 and I understand it's it's not an ADU. I just wanted to >> get my mind. >> Um, >> yeah.
>> Okay. Um, second question. Can anybody um explain to me the the litigation and what are the possible outcomes? How does it how do people get affected
>> possible? >> Michael the uh family they are at 25 Henderson. Apparently, they believe that the deeds of record show that they own Henderson
Avenue. >> Okay. And the litigation is for a determination by the court as to whether the deeds in fact show this. And if they do um then
uh what will be the uh access for the homes on Henderson who all need that access in order to get out to uh the street. So, this is what's in play now. And I
think one of the neighbors indicated that they had all been sued by the Hendersons. And that's it's something called a quiet title action. So, the idea is you're putting all the properties on notice that you
feel are either you own those properties or they're being affected by the claim that you're making. that there are there are no easements that exist now. Well, and the other side of the argument is that I I'm not sure if the neighbors
are alleging that no, they own they have ownership or at a minimum they have easements. Uh, and it all ties back into deeds, deeds of record and a chain of deeds.
And what do these deeds depict? So in a quiet title action, you go to court and you say to the judge, you decide and both sides apparently have given the judge documentation and made arguments
and written briefs and now the judge has to make the decision. So for the applicant, you have a deed. Does your deed have an easement recorded on it? >> Unfortunately, no.
>> No. Okay. I >> Okay. >> But by necessity, we have easement, right? And the previous owners as well. >> I'm not sure what that means. By necessity mean
>> meaning they can't get out. I mean they could not if they cannot cross onto Henderson Avenue they cannot get out to a public street meaning the rest of the world like they be they
have to be able to go on Anderson including this applicant because although they front on mountain their access their driveway is on Henderson. So all the neighbors have to be able to
travel on Henderson Avenue to get out. >> Okay. So I and I and and uh since you know we're not involved in the litigation, I I can't imagine that the that the owners of 25 Henderson who
brought this Clyde title, I can't imagine that they would take the position that no one has access. But again, we're we're not involved in the litigation. So Okay. Thank you. Thanks.
So, let's continue on in our discussions. Um, any comments on the application or questions about it? I I mean, it seems to be, you know, a
functional design. I don't necessarily agree with it. as I mentioned before, but that's what the applicant wants to do. I think it takes into consideration the the narrowness of the lot and um I think
architecturally I think it's uh it's sensitive to the house and I don't see where it would create any disturbance for the neighbors. want my comment?
>> Um, >> yes, please. >> Um, yeah, I think that the parking issue that the neighbor is raising would possibly become an issue if this
were treated as or turned into an ADU. And so I just and since that's not the applicant's intention, um are we able to say if we approve this, are we able to say in a resolution
of approval that this is not an ADU, it's not intended to be an ADU? Um and have that be, you know, binding. And >> Taylor, I have a question for you. Um,
just to put on the record, this could not qualify as an ADU because why? >> There are no kitchen facilities. >> Um, it's it's also not um
entirely separated from the main dwelling. If it was attached to the main dwelling, it would have to have a wall between the two, a demising wall. >> Okay. Well, then I think, Donna, to answer
your question, I think we could do that. We could spell out on the resolution, one of the findings would be it does not meet the criteria or standards for an ADU and it's not being approved as an ADU. So, I I think we could make that
clear in the resolution, >> but but that doesn't keep it ever from being turned into a rental unit. >> Well, yeah, Stephen, >> that just means they can't sell it. >> Yeah. I mean the the the zoning
ordinances evolve over time. So it's it's I think all we can do is deal with uh the current zoning we have and for example the concern with parking. Um I
think the suggestion was that no additional parking could be placed on the site without um zoning approval. uh and since it increases impervious coverage, I don't know if the amount of
coverage could be um constrained to the point where it would not need a variance, but um so I think I think that's all we can deal with now because in the future the
zoning ordinances can be changed many ways to accommodate permutations of ADUs or something that right now doesn't qualify as an ADU but 10 years from now oh it does the
ordinance has been changed and now here are other options for people but I think for the time being uh yes we could make findings in the resolution that this does not qualify as an ADU and it's not
being approved as one nor does the applicant nor are they seeking that they're seeking this as an addition to their home. I I think we need to we what we're talking about we need to if we can more
focus on limiting um the possibility of parking I don't know if we can but whether we call it an ADU I mean just having more living space um and having people who are young grow up and become
drivers encourages the possibility of more cars being there. So it it doesn't matter whether we're calling it an ADU or or you know just an addition. But I'm not clear about it doesn't sound like
I'm I'm not sure what we could what we can do. It doesn't I'm not hearing any clear path forward to other than that there's enforcement possibility in the future if parking happens on where it's not supposed to.
Well, I'm not I'm not sure what else you could do with any property if people are parking or they should not be parking and it's brought to the attention of the town and the zoning officer goes out and confirms and says, "Yeah, you're not
supposed to be parking there." Either the property owner, they'll get a a notice of zoning violation. If they don't rectify it, then they get issued a summon. they have to go to municipal court. So, normally most property owners would
say, "I'll give okay, I won't do it anymore or I guess I have to make an application now." You know, I have to come in for a variance and that's what property owners would normally do and not just for
parking for many aspects of of what they may be doing to their home. So, I I don't know what we would do differently with another property. >> Yeah, this this doesn't seem uh all that
different from any site that has restrict restrictive uh limited parking. Um I mean, I think it it comes up as more of a focus because of the particularities of this site, but it's a common thing in other projects.
Now, I know other comment or concern was raised about the existing um I guess it's a a dense hedge that's along Henderson right now. Um, I don't I don't know how the litigation
will turn out and if that if that had to be removed, is there room on the property to put a hedge if if the existing landscaping uh was removed, if if the determination
is made that the uh owners of 25 Henderson in fact own this street. Um, and I I'm I'm asking that question. I don't know, Taylor, that would be maybe question for you. Is there room
to put other landscaping now? Um, >> if it wasn't in the right, I mean, if it had to be pulled, >> it would have to be on the property line or over, >> right? So >> sure what you're getting at Karen? What
how does that affect anything? >> I'm I'm asking it because the neighbor still raised the concern about that you know and I think during the hearing uh concern was raised since it's in the
right way. >> If I might this is Steve Drai. Yeah. Um the there's no room as it currently configured, but the walk that is restricting where the planting could be um moved closer to the house and then
there would be room to not relocate that mature hedge, but plant a new hedge uh on their property. It would just require the relocation of the of the sidewalk. I I don't know if we're even moving in the right direction with these
discussions because we have no idea what the litigation's going to be and how many other things in addition to the landscaping this would affect. >> Steve, you're right. But I'm bringing it up just because we have a neighbor who is raising the concern and asking the
board, would you consider these issues? and this this applicant, she doesn't I'm sure they don't want to come back again. >> So, we're trying to >> or at least I'm raising these to see if these can be addressed in some fashion
in the resolution >> so that >> the hedge that's in front of the addition >> Wait, I'm sorry. Who Who's speaking? >> I'm sorry. This is Katherine Mueller, the engineer. I'm the iPhone. I'm the I'm the visual in the iPhone.
>> In front of the addition, we have plenty of room to move it back. So, >> yeah, Karen, I'm wondering if given the potential for changes, can we say in the resolution if we're going to move in
that direction that this would have to come back to us for changes because there are so many potential changes that that I'm not sure we can just turn this all over to our engineer
and let him resolve it without talking with us. >> Well, except that Steve, if it's coming back to us, are we So, you're saying we would retain jurisdiction for how long?
>> I don't know. I mean, >> well, that that's why I thought perhaps we could sort of that there is a way to address it in this resolution, meaning it no additional parking is going to be added without zoning approval. Now, if
that means they first go to the zoning officer and the zoning officer tells them, "Yes, you can do this." All right. Well, that they talked to the zoning officer and she's indicated to them that a space wherever it might be is
compliant. All right. So, I mean, I don't I'm not sure why that would need to what connection that would have to the litigation. As far as the hedge goes, well, again, I'm not sure what would be gained
by someone forcing the removal of that hedge. I don't know how that's productive to anybody, but um if the court concludes that one property owns the entire street,
then I guess you could say potentially, yeah, they have the they would have the ability to say that. So, I'm raising it just to figure out, okay, if if that were to happen, can additional landscaping be added as a buffer? Now,
that would mean that this would fall on the applicant to do that. But >> the one neighbor who discussed the parking is only one neighbor. There are other neighbors that that would be
affected by changes in parking there. Well, yes, but if the applicant if the applicant is willing to accept that there won't be additional parking on the site without
zoning approval and I say that they may just go to the zoning officer and she may say, "Show me what you want to do." Oh, it's compliant. Fine. You can go ahead and do it. Or, "I'm sorry, it's not. You'll have to come in front of the
board. So, I don't know, Steve, you want to leave this hanging until there's a decision by the court. Okay. I'm not sure that the decision that the court's asked to make is it's not going
to be anything about landscaping or additional parking. It's about ownership. Who owns that private street? That's what that's as I understand it, that's what the case is about. So I don't know how open this would stay.
That >> didn't the applicant say at the onset that they wouldn't do anything until this litigation was resolved? What the condition that has been suggested by our zoning officer and
staff is that they cannot get a building permit or zoning permit until they can provide a valid access easement.
And the assumption is that can't happen until the current litigation has been disposed of by the court. So it could be very quickly. We we don't we don't know how long it's
going to take, but I think yes, that's the condition as proposed and the applicant has agreed to that. things like hedges having to be a forced removal of a hedge or
adding parking on your property which hasn't been approved. My thought was if it could be resolved in this resolution, uh, that might be helpful. But
if if the if the board prefers to put a condition that says no additional parking without zoning board approval, no removal of hedge without zoning board
approval, >> no changes maybe without zoning board approval. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, don't get that specific to hedges or parking because there may be something else that comes up. >> All right.
>> I guess I mean I'd like to hear what the other board members think. >> What would >> Yeah, I think that's a broader a broader way of uh preserving what was submitted as what gets done. Otherwise, you have
to come forward again. litigation ongoing. I mean, we don't know what's going to happen with this. >> And when we when we say if we say no
additional parking, we really mean or do we really mean a parking the area cannot be expanded? I'm just making sure we're clear on what no additional parking means.
>> So, no expansion of parking area. >> Parking would expand the the impervious coverage as well. So, >> it would I I think there was a comment about potentially there might be a way to do that to reduce impervious
coverage. So you might kind of slide in under the the the the maximum coverage. >> You know, you have a you have a site plan that has a defined parking area in it. So
it it may be good that it not be expanded. >> Okay. Now remember of course since this is a single family home they don't have to provide a site plan and frequently professionals will say well this is our
site plan but it's not a formal site plan. >> Okay so in terms of but we can say all right so no expansion of the parking area without zoning board approval. Uh, I'm not sure how you want to describe if
the So, if this hedge is removed, if the densely dense hedge along Henderson, >> you just say no changes to the landscaping or the parking without board approval. >> Not nearly as concerned about the
hedges. >> Yeah, me neither. I'm sorry. Say again. I missed. I'm >> not concerned about the hedges. >> You're not or you are? >> I am not. >> Okay. Well, again, you're not. >> I am. I don't
>> I don't think one of the holdups here. The parking I think is a is a >> is something we should say, but >> you know, the hedges are going to get taken down if the litigation goes against these owners. And if the
litigation goes against these owners, they're not going to be able to do it anyhow. So, you know, I think it's a a mute point. >> Well, in in other applications, it's not unusual for the board to consider
buffering. In this pl in this case, the buffering exists. There is a hedge. And I think the applicant, you know, they pointed that out to explain they weren't going to change it, it would remain as a buffer, >> right?
>> So I think the question is >> unless the litigation unless the litigation goes against them and if it goes against them, then they're probably not going to be able to do this project anyhow. So I don't I you know I don't >> well I mean I I don't think we can
assume though that that even even if the party bringing the action is successful. I I would be I'm not sure on what basis they could deny access to all their neighbors to use Henderson. >> I don't either. I mean it would have to
be in a form of easement >> and in that case the hedge would remain where it is. >> Well look I I know >> I don't think it hurts though to include that >> as a >> make a motion >> factor. Make a motion.
>> Well I I'm >> maybe we're still talking Steve. >> We are but I don't think we're going anywhere. So what's the next step? Well, does anybody have any other points,
comments? Anyone concerns? But you'd like to make a motion. Make a motion. And then we'll discuss the motion. I think my last comment is I understand the workaround. It's not an
ADU. Um there's a creative way they've done to to do it without having it being a complete living unit. There's no kitchen. I'm troubled by,290
ft where an ADU would have got you somewhere around 800. Um but um the lot is narrow which triggers the variances and that's all I have to say left.
>> I I agree with Michael and my only other concern is is the parking and I think we should restrict the parking to the area proposed. Um, but I share his concerns about the potential for the building down the
road, but I'm willing to support this application. >> Yeah, I I agree. I I think that with the the odd conditions that the lot has um you know it it is significantly over with the the F but it the fact that it's
okay with the impervious coverage I I think I can support it and you know um whatever uh we want to say regarding you know future changes that it's the plans is submitted and the parking as it is um otherwise it
has to come forward before um for approval, zoning approval. Again, >> Michael, did you make a did you make a motion or were you just making >> No, I didn't. >> I just made observations.
>> Okay, that's fine. Does someone want to make a motion? Well, I I'm willing to make a motion to approve this, but I'd like some I think we have the some of the conditions clarified at this point, but I'd like
some help with >> Okay. Well, >> what those >> having to do with parking that there wouldn't be an increase in the parking without coming back to us. Um, what else do we want to add?
>> No change in the landscape. >> How about in how about simply saying that they'll maintain a landscape buffer? >> Sounds good. >> It's a good idea. Yeah. >> And then that way if the other one has to be removed, it's removed. But the
point is that they'll they will maintain maintain a landscape buffer. So since it apparently it's possible to do that that there will be the abil there would be the ability to do it as best as we can.
>> Bernice, did you say anything else that >> No, I think that's that sounds consistent with what I was uh >> and then we have the two conditions from um our zoning review memo. One is that
uh the applicant will have to provide um a valid easement agreement uh pro which would give them access now to Henderson road prior to the issuance of a building or a zoning permit.
>> Yes. And then we also have >> the consolidation of lots. >> Correct. I'm getting some message here. I don't I don't know. I don't I don't know who this is from.
So I don't know. Um Okay. Um Yes. Yes. Um, I think through the hearing we haven't really talked about RSIs at all, which are the residential site improvement
standards. Um, but I don't know, Taylor, I think you had a question about that. So, >> yeah, I do have a question about the RSIS, but I am not an engineer and I don't, you know, I wish Mr. Purcell was here to comment on that, but to my
knowledge, I believe that if there is any additional parking or additional driveway entrances made to Henderson Avenue, it would have to be improved to today's standards. Meaning, >> you mean Henderson Avenue would have to be improved? >> Henderson Avenue would have to be
improved. Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. But but that would only be oh adding additional parking to the road. >> Yes. >> Well, actually though, I mean, if the litigation concludes that they don't they have no ownership, then they
couldn't they couldn't do that anyway. They couldn't make that change. Only the owner of the road could do that. >> Right. >> Okay. Miss Miller, you want to comment on that or
I'd be happy to comment it on it, but I'm not quite sure what the the question was. I mean, if the road was widened, there could be potential for parking along a quote road, but >> No, but I mean adding a park like uh the the concern of adding parking or adding
a driveway to that road would require that road to be improved. >> Actually, any additional parking on the property would require a variance and it would come back to this board. Um we're
only allowed one driveway cut. Um, any additional other driveway cut or access would require variance and any widening of the existing one would require an additional variance because we're seeking a variance for the width. So, you know, I know the board's
concerned about more parking. Any additional parking would have to come to this board. >> Hope that answers the question. Did we did we add the consolidation of the two lots? Carol, >> we did. >> Yes.
>> Then I second to the use motion. >> And then I think though we want to add the um the ADU language. >> All right. Yeah, I will have that in the findings, not ADU.
What would we say about that? >> Well, Stephen, my thought would be that it would be in the board's findings. It's not I'm not sure it's a condition, but in the board's findings, it would be that
this does not meet the criteria for an ADU. It has not been submitted for approval as an ADU. It's not being approved as an ADU. It is an addition to the house.
So that's fine with me, but it doesn't seem to change anything. It's not an ADU. It's not being submitted as a ADU. So >> yes, but I I I I think the point's well
taken just because if for some reason these owners for any reason had to sell and there's a new owner, a new owner might say, "Oh, you know what? It's really the same thing. So I have plans. I intend to consider
this as an ADU." And if it is an ADU, it does give people other, should we say, options. So, >> okay, then I agree with it. I agree with you. >> Okay. All right. So, I think we've got
everything. I think we have everything now. Do you want me to go through it again? We have no expansion of the parking area without zoning board approval. Uh the applicants will maintain a landscape
buffer along uh along their Henderson Avenue facade. Uh they will have to provide a valid easement for access to Henderson uh prior to getting a building or zoning
permit. They will consolidate their two lots. Uh and we will include language in the findings uh regarding the fact that this is not uh an accessory dling unit
under our ordinance definitions. >> Do we have a second? Did you second it? >> I think I seconded. >> Okay. >> Yeah, Mr. Shrivever second that. >> Okay. Should I call the RO and I yet? >> Aaron, do you have anything else to add?
Okay, Claudia, please call the role. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Strive. Mrs. Shrivever. >> Yes.
Yes. You get it? Mr. Stein, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> The application is approved.
>> Okay, >> Miss Goo, thank you very much as well as the witnesses and the neighbors who commented. Thank you. >> Thank you, board members. >> Thank you, board members. Thank you, neighbors. and thank you and staff from
the Princeton zoning office. >> Okay, >> so 5 minutes. >> Okay, it is 9:53. We will reconvene. How about 7 minutes for reconvene at 10:00?
>> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. Ryan, when you get a chance, can you let me know who are your professionals so I can move them to panelists from attendees? Peace. It's not Okay. Um, as soon as there I think we're
all back now. Uh, Claudia, are we recording again? >> Yes, we are. >> Okay. Okay. We are back in session. Our next case is case number Z26-734
220 222 More Street block 7110 lot 22 in the R8T zone. Um Karen, do we have all the paperwork in order? >> Yeah, the noticing is in order. The
board has jurisdiction tonight. Taylor, can you summarize your memo for us? >> Yeah, absolutely. Um, so tonight you'll be hearing testimony about 222 Moore Street. That's block um
7110 lot 22 in the R8 zone. Excuse me. Connie Chen and Mark McConnell are the owners and applicants. The applicants are seeking a D4 variance and C1 and two variances to construct a twocar garage attached to the existing
dwelling with a covered patio and a walkway. Um the subject property is on the corner is on a corner lot with frontage on Moore Street to the east and Henry Avenue to the south. Um to the west of the subject property there is a
10-ft alley and to the north is lot 22. In 2002, previous property owners of 222 More Street received variance approval for a D4 F variance with where the permitted floor area was 34.41%
and the variance allowed for an increase of 549 square ft for a floor area ratio of 42%. Um, the subject property is not located within a locally designated historic district. Um the subject property is in the R8T
zone and is subject to the use and bulk requirements um in accordance with sections T10B 246 through 255 and 255.1 of the former um Princeton Township land
use ordinance. The subject lot is not compliant with the following bulk requirements. The lot area where the lot area requirement is 8,500 the existing is 7500. The floor area ratio which is 33.52%
required the existing uh is or the proposed is 47.63%. Um the applicants are also seeking variances from the neighborhood character for
um the front-facing garages to be set back from the front facade 16 ft where the proposed is 13.7 ft. Um and additionally with the driveway width in the neighborhood character, the max is
14 ft and the proposed is 22 ft at the curb line and the max at the property line is 10 ft where the proposed is 22 ft. Um you will see that the um application has been slightly amended.
Um which will in turn add a fourth variance to that list of the neighborhood character for garages on narrow lots. Um if the board has any questions or
concerns, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Members, any questions? Okay. Um, who is going to be representing this application? Mr. Kennedy, >> good to see you, Mr. >> Chairman. Good to see you as well. Um,
>> please start. >> Thank you. Uh, for before we start formally, there's a couple people, Claudia, in the audience. Um, our maybe if they could push their raised hand button, but our planner, uh, Nicholas Graviano, our architect, John De Cruz,
and our applicants, um, are under the name Mark McConnell. So, as they come over, um, want to Ryan Kenny from the law firm of Stevens and Lee, uh, here for the applicants, uh, Connie and Mark. They're on together, uh, this evening on on one Zoom to
economize a little bit. Um, as uh Miss Gribbon said, uh, we're here on an undersized lot, a narrow lot, and a corner lot. Um, that has, uh, some challenges. Additionally, a challenge of having a a partially used alley behind
it. And the problem that uh Connie and Mark have asked their architect and team to solve essentially is to get them um to have a covered parking place uh for for their cars and to to store things. Uh the current configuration, as you'll
see, it comes off a very narrow alley. Uh it is very challenging to get in and out. Um they did explore with their architect over series of years ways to try to find a place for a garage that made sense. Ultimately, the thing that makes sense is the pattern that's on
Henry Avenue. This is on the corner of More Street and Henry Avenue. Most of the corner properties um have sidefacing garages and on narrow lots. Uh there are challenges with that. We've set this back as far as we can uh because corners
in the former township have two fronts. Um, so we have to still on a that second front set back the side front-facing garage 16 ft. Um, we get close to that almost 14 ft, but there's really um, as
you can see, not much more room to to go beyond that. Uh, you'll also see, which is also very common for the neighborhood, a wider uh, driveway um than the 14 or 10t that are permitted. This is again another unique feature of
this neighborhood where there are very generous not just front yard setbacks on Moore Street but this extra right ofway area along Henry. So the um lot line is well recessed into this kind
of yard area and to constrain it like in this kind of hourglass shape would make it really challenging to get cars in and out of a garage. And you can see that pattern uh up and down Henry Avenue and we'll we'll show that as well. And finally, we do have a planner here
tonight. Um we we do have a floor area variance for the addition of the garage. Uh the number is perhaps higher than it seems or than you'd expect. um because there is a small storage area that if we eliminated the number would change, but
essentially it's a using several hundred square feet to kind of um uh make better use of that roof space. Garages uh if it were detached could be up to 15 ft. Um we respect that. We still have that, but by having a uh angled um roof line, uh
two things you'll you'll see. One is that they could put some solar panels on part of it, but it allows it for a bit of a storage space. And by using it as storage space, we are above the 12 feet. Uh you know, it's a problem that I don't think this application was meant to be solved by this provision. Uh but uh
anything over 12 ft high uh is counted double for Florida. Normally that's that's kind of a um an anti-terown provision for new homes. It's you know large foyers, great rooms. here. The storage space or the extra headroom by
not closing in the normally sized ceiling counts as that. So, we've got almost 250 square feet of this is that type of space and and I I think you'll hear and hope you agree that use of it as as storage on a small lot makes uh a lot of a lot of sense. Finally, as Mr.
Griven um alluded to we have revised our our presentation slightly after uh speaking again with one of um the applicants neighbors. There's a the folks kind of behind them on the alley
off of Henry Avenue um had been I'll describe supporters, but when they went back again to review the plans, uh they had a comment about how how close the garage was to the alley. And essentially, we've decided to to accommodate their concern, make sure there's enough room to get back and forth and not alter that area really
back there by moving it back about 5 ft away from the alley. To design the garage of the same size, we are now pushing into the sideyard setback 3 ft. Um, we hope you agree that that's a a compromise that makes makes sense to to revise the design that way. And we'll
show you uh the the changes there um as well. Um, we've got I'll say three and a half witnesses. Uh, the applicants will kind of speak uh together. Uh, then our architect and our planners. So, um, Miss Casey, if it makes sense for us to swear
everyone in at one's happy to to do that now. >> Sure. So, we have the applicants, Miss Chen, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Graiano. Do you all swear or affirm
your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, we do. >> I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um so, Connie, Mark, um I'll let us start with with you guys and and to members of the board, but again, thank you for your time tonight.
Um not to oversimplify what we're doing, but we'll do our best to to to get through it um uh for everyone. Uh Connie and before I introduce um Connie more or ask them to introduce themselves more formally um we have one set of exhibits
um uh that we had sent over in advance. Uh there was an original and a revised. We would just be showing the revised one. Uh it is 16 slides. Um >> and we'd like to mark that as our one exhibit here this evening. >> Okay. So exhibit A1.
>> All right. Uh so uh Connie and Mark um thank you so much. um if you could uh just briefly introduce yourselves uh to the board, your connection here uh to Princeton and and the problem that you have um are trying to solve with this project at your your at your home on
More Street. >> Well, um thank you very much. My name is Mark McConnell. So I teach at Princeton University. I'm a senior lecturer in the master department. I love this lot in part because I can walk to my work every day, but I'm I'm getting I hope I can
walk to work 10 or 20 years from now, but but we'll see. Connie. >> Hi, my name is Connie. Uh I retired already and the reason we are trying to get a garage is really we are we are both are getting older and then um so
the digging the the car out of snow become a huge chore of us. Mark once already work on the ice and broke his arm once and I got a cancer twice and I have one knee replacement. So it's becoming increasingly difficult for us
to to to walk through the backyard, get the car, dig the car out of snow. So we are really applying for to get a garage so that we have a walk we can walk to the garage and drive our car. Yeah, that that's basically the the what what we
are asking for. Thank you guys. Um, if it's all right, I'll share my screen and we'll go through our our exhibits. I think that's, uh, materialized here. So, um, Connie and Mark, um, uh, slide two is the zoning map of the area. Is
that big red arrow show where your property is on the corner of Moore and Henry Avenue? >> That's correct. Yes. >> All right. Uh, next we've got some aerial photos. This is slide three. the blue arrow. Uh I don't know why I've switched from red to blue, but blue uh
um shows your house there on the corner. >> Yep. >> All right. And now moving to slide four. Again, we're zooming in a little bit. I'm going to ask you just to talk a little bit about the current configuration. So, um uh here at the on the right side, that's
more street than left to right Henry Avenue. Um and then you can see how you currently get to uh your parking area now. So, you're going to talk a little bit about um the problem that's that's had for you and and the challenges in getting it out um that you have.
>> Yeah. So, our back door is here. If if my arrow you can see and >> you can't but if you describe it, I'll try to follow. They might see my >> So, my back Yeah. >> Sorry about that. >> Yeah, the back door is No, it's not there. It's Yeah. >> Yeah. It's it's um it's on the outer
corner of the the addition of the house. And then we have to go walk through the the backyard, go to the red car is where we park. We park one or two car, one behind the other. And so right now is uh we we have the maneuver come out of the
alleyway. So what what we try to do is to get a garage where we parking right now, but coming from the front directly. Now the the the alleyway um is paved for a while and then gets to a line and
there's no um then the pavement stops. So generally um >> the neighbors car you see the space yeah the neighbor usually park there. So >> but the but the neighbors further down they still have access but don't use it on a regular basis. >> Do not use on a regular basis. They
still use it couple times a year. Yeah. Now, so, uh, here on slide five, got a couple of photos, um, I guess the top right that shows where the photos are kind of pointing from the orient folks, but, um, you can, I suppose, see in the
bottom center that photo that looks down the alley from from across the street. Um, so the alley, I guess, is a little bit wider than it's perhaps shows on the maps. And then down where that fence line is, that's where it narrows up to where the 10 feet that it's supposed to be. >> Yeah. Got it.
>> That's the really alley. The other part is part of our property. >> Now, if you are parking there and you get the two cars that Princeton needs you to have uh in the township that you're supposed to show off site, how do you get out right now? Do you do you have to do you you back out?
>> Yeah, sometimes back out. Yeah, we have to back out sometimes. >> Yeah. And and I guess in on the top left sometimes would you kind of back into that little narrow spot where the fence >> chokes the alley down and then do try to K turn out. >> Yeah, sometimes we do that too depending
on Yeah. >> I I imagine did things get crowded back there with your neighbors use I think in the in the space on the bottom you can see >> where they park it kind of you know >> not say noses out that's the not the nose end of the car but kind of into the into the alley a little bit.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. They are >> all right. So, so I I guess just to summarize, your goal here was to get your cars covered to be able to get to them. Um, but also to to uh remove the conflicts and kind of simplify how you
>> get back there and make it easier for you and your guests to get cars um frankly >> in and out. Yeah. It's not open to compete with the neighbor for the space. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, and we'll we'll I'll bring that up again in a second here. But, um,
here, uh, slide six, this is kind of a the neighborhood view, but gosh, there's there's many of the homes around you, um, perhaps with the exception of the one directly behind you, um, have this the sidefacing
garage that you're kind of proposing in a in a fairly wide um, uh, driveway. Is that is that correct? So >> that's all our neighbors. Yeah. >> Yeah. Though Yeah. One of those pictures is just across the street from us. >> Yeah. That's in the other corner. We are in one corner. They are in the next
corner. >> The two double double door garage. Yeah. >> Um >> and before we get to the the the the next slide and move to our architect, honestly, I know you've you've talked to many of your neighbors and one in particular that you had talked to um
I'll show you're a 220 bore is 153. The folks that you the only ones who really regularly use They are very supportive but they also do not want to have to change their configuration. They they already had a certain configuration there. So then that's what we decided
that we going to build the garage into more into our property. So just that so they can come out in and bit easier because they have teenagers. They says they want bit wider space to drive in and out. They don't know how to be kids
have to be super duper careful. So, so basically in the last couple days, while they had been supportive, uh, you know, they kind of focused a little bit more on the on the design and their comment was, "Maybe you can move the garage back closer to your house and make sure there's still plenty of room for their car movements." And your
answer to them was, "Sure, let's do that." >> Yeah. So, once um the the final plans have moved the garage closer and we have emails from them saying, "Oh, we're perfectly fine with that." Mhm. >> Well, thank you for not all my clients are so helpful to to to talk to the
neighbors like that. I much I'll say appreciated. Uh um and I'll I'll say um I think that was the change that Miss Gribbon had alluded to at the beginning. Um so before we go to our architect to to talk about both the differences in um members of the board, what you saw initially, the slight differences and
the the proposed revised plan, um just I'll I'll ask if uh Mr. Chairman, if if if anyone has questions for the applicants, certainly happy to make them available. >> Board members, any uh questions so far? >> Nope. Please continue. Mr. Penny.
>> All right. Uh Connie Mark, thank you so much. Austin, don't go too far. We might find something else for you. But uh um John um if you could uh unmute yourself um and uh introduce yourself as our architect to the board briefly. Uh
particularly considering the hour. uh give the board the benefit of your license and credential information. >> Uh sure. Good evening. Uh so yeah, my name is John De Cruz. I'm an architect. I have a B arch and an M arch and I've been a registered architect uh in New
Jersey for over 20 years. And I'm also a resident of uh Princeton. >> We will accept you as an expert, Mr. Zruz. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Uh so Mr. Cruz. Um, this, uh, slide seven is kind of a colorized version of the
basic idea of the original submission that we've talked about, but um, not to get into too much of the details, but just basically kind of talk through what you know, Connie and Mark asked you to do, the challenges we had on the site and um, you know, what we're looking at uh, here.
>> Sure. And can you guys see my cursor or No, you'll >> No. Uh, but if you describe it, I might be able to follow with mine. >> Sure. So, um, as was said before, we're on a corner lot which has, um, two front yards and two sideyards. Obviously, the
gray area in the middle is the existing, uh, house. The area towards the rear of the property is where the current parking area is. And in essence, we're converting the existing parking area into a garage. In this original scheme,
uh we sort of we pushed the garage towards the uh rear of the property, which is really a sideyard. And between the twocar garage and the existing house, we added in a patio. And along the front edge of that patio, there's a
covered walkway that directly connects the house to the garage undercover. Um, in terms of locating the at least the the Henry side of the garage, we in essence aligned the face of the garage
to the face of the recessed portion of the existing house. >> Um, John, I'm going to ask you just because we we'll talk about these variances a bit later. While it's common on the street, what's maybe not common around Princeton is this kind of unique
extra-large, I don't know, frontage along Henry. So this uh where my cursor is that that I'm tracing that's the property line. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yep. That is the property line. >> So then here that you know that as you heard both in this application the one
before uh the the two requirements that Princeton has for driveways which are probably more relevant in other parts of town are a width at the curb cut and a width at the property line. So here the property line is recessed oddly in
interiorly with with this extra space and quite close frankly to the garage. So the the idea with what you've designed John is to essentially extend out the width that's kind of necessary to get into a garage um at 22 ft.
>> Correct. It's basically a twocar garage with a double wide driveway so that you can pull each car directly into the garage and exit the garage without having to stack parking. I just like to say one other thing about the existing
in this scheme. As you can see, the the existing curb cut that leads into the alleyway is actually pushed on to uh Connie and Mark's property. And our
original scheme was to sort of redo the curb cut to the alleyway and get it back in alignment with the actual alleyway and then having our driveway adjacent to it.
>> So, but we'll we'll we'll show the kind of revised plan where we're not really going to going to propose changing the the the alley really u at all. But ultimately, as it turns out, the the way the deeds show where the alley to be and had over the years shifted onto Connie and Mark's uh property as it as it
seems, despite what the what the maps show. Um, but this is a fairly simple and we'll we'll go into some detail on the next slide, but generally John, is this correct that this kind of green box shows the the change from the original submission to what was worked out with
the neighbors to push the garage away from the alley uh by about 5 ft. >> Correct. So the the goal was to move the garage closer to the existing house and to preserve the existing curb cut of the
alleyway and the access to the parking area for the neighbor. And also we slightly changed the proportion of the garage to maintain not only the two cars but a storage area. And so here's the kind of revised sketch
of what um we're with the it's hard to tell honestly 5t on a on a site sketch is is hard to spot but ultimately this is the revised garage shape and location. Um and and here essentially showing uh
you know keeping the the front of the alleyway you know essentially where it's been uh and not not changing it. and then um showing um some additional planting or kind of buffering um along
that that existing line. Um any are there any other um I mean we'll probably highlight in a bit but in in doing so to keep the garage similarly functional you did one of the compromises was to the
need to push it into the sideyard setback slightly. Is that correct? >> Correct. So the the garage itself got more narrow which caused us, you know, basically then there was no room. The the original storage area was along the
side of the garage. Once the garage got more narrow, we moved the storage area to the rear of the garage, which caused it to push further into that sideyard setback. >> Got it. Um, so maybe this this slide might highlight
that a little bit. So this red area, that's the new um at least new as of today uh um encroachment uh that's proposed into the 8ft sideyard setback shown in red. >> That's correct. Now, interestingly, you
know, we we did talk this through. Um, we believe it does require a variance, but we did want to show under the neighborhood character, there are a couple of different provisions that I I do we we do think show that what we've done here, while yes, it does need a variance, is what the neighborhood
character was looking. So, um, we, you know, on the top right, it's the, um, garage on corner lots understanding, um, from the neighborhood character ordinance and the formbased zoning that shows, you know, yes, that that the idea is to kind of configure
them like we've done here that we'll call side facing or that second front facing addressing the smaller of the of the secondary of the street as we've done that. and and second, a provision um that actually does allow for a garage
of this height uh to encroach into a sideyard setback on narrow lots like this. However, for whatever reason, that does not apply specifically to corner lots, as it turns out. So there's a lot of examples of of um uh this activity I
guess being um uh encouraged in the code, but this particular configuration, this particular lot doesn't meet all the requirements. Uh John maybe would also add um if we did not connect the garage, would a sideyard setback be needed?
>> Correct. So, if this was an auxiliary structure, u it would allow for a five foot sideyard setback um for this size and height of garage. >> And and ultimately, that's what we're proposing here. Um a 5yard setback.
>> Correct. Five yards a five foot sideyard setback. and and uh we'll we'll hear a bit but you know maybe just want to talk a little bit from a not maybe not design I don't mean visually perspective but uh from the functionality perspective you just want to talk through I know that
was the request the the from the the the applicants the need to you know get to their cars uh and and and you know essentially stay covered but you know I'm going to talk a little bit about the benefit of you know the covered connection.
>> Sure. So it is it's basically a an open covered area that goes over the patio. So the you know it's an open patio and along the um Henry Street it's um you know it's open basically just an an open
cover and that allows the even though it becomes an attached garage. It is you know it's a very open and porous connection. And I guess moving on to slide 11 we're up to now. You know, we did try to show
because, you know, members of the board, you you did see plans. They are from this perspective, I think, very subtly different, but we tried to show the differences so you could, you know, see them side by side. So, the top is what was originally submitted. The bottom is the revised plan, and I guess the bottom right, we overlaid the original on the
revised so you could kind of see the different configuration, but ultimately the blue on the left is new. And then that center portion is the covered um connector that you mentioned. >> Correct.
>> Um here's that view again and kind of showing what um what's there now, which is essentially there's a fence and and a shed in that area. So generally this um you know the new location kind of matches where that
um fence line not on the Henry Street side but on the on the alleyway side um lined up more or less >> more or less more or less. It may it may actually be inboard ever slightly slightly more. But again, the the
critical portion to this was to maintain that the existing curb cut and access to the parking for the neighbor at the rear. Uh there's a couple other views. So bottom right, that's the um existing
kind of I'll say cross alley view. That's if you were in the the neighbors who park in the alley and looking across at uh Connie and Mark's house, what you would see now. >> Correct. >> And the bottom left is um kind of this uh left arrow angle showing you know
what what it looks like to you know their their parking area kind of looks like now. >> U >> and you can see that the sort of the form of the garage is meant to mimic the existing house. It's a single sloped
roof. Um, the other change that we did make on the left, which was the original proposal, the high side of the garage faced Henry and in discussions and it got a little longer, we flipped the roof
slope so that the high side is on the sideyard with the low side on Henry Street, which also would allow hopefully for, you know, the roof would now face south for possible future solar panels on that roof.
Um so uh maybe not quite last but uh um just briefly if you could take the board just through uh the numbers. I know the percentages don't really tell the story here. you know, maybe you could talk
through particularly, you know, what we're what we're add, you know, what the garage is adding, you know, the the size of the covered car, um, excuse me, the the walkway, and then the the the part which I think is shown in the top left that it ends up being doubled because
you you get a headroom that's above 12 ft. >> Correct. So, I'll just go through through all the numbers quickly. So, the first floor, the original existing first floor is 1550. Out of that, we're removing that little area in the back,
which is a storage room, which leaves us with 1,57 square ft. On the second floor, um it is 1,600 square ft. Uh from a covered area or
covered walkway point of view, there's a 42 square feet in the front that is existing. There's a little covered area in the back that's 28 square ft. And then we're proposing a new covered area of 120 square ft. You add all of those
together, we're at 190 square ft, which is under the 200 square f foot uh credit for uh covered areas. Um there there is no attic space. We have shallow roofs. Then from a garage
point of view. Uh the proposed uh footprint of the garage is 670 square ft because it is in the rear yard or the what is considered the rear yard in this configuration. We get a 300
square ft credit for garage in the rear yard. The garage is less than 15 feet uh tall. Um because we are trying to maximize storage on the inside. It's a single sloped roof. We do have two
storage lofts on the interior. Um the area at the very back is where the storage loft is, which basically makes the ceiling height less than 12 feet. Uh, but the shaded area in the center is
still it's an area in the center of the garage that is still above the 12 foot maximum ceiling height. So once it's over 12 ft, it counts as double. Um, and we add that here to the bottom. So if
you take the garage at 670 minus the 300 you 300 ft credit and then we add the 220 square ft of the portion of the garage that is above the 12 ft. We end up with an F for the garage that's 590
square ft. You take the first floor, second floor, and the garage F. You add it all together and that gives us uh let me see if I can see this uh 49.3 uh percentage of um
proposed F which uh is um 547 square feet of basically new F and >> sorry new off new F above the existing thing. >> And just so I have it right, 220 square
ft of that or just under 3% is that >> odd area where you have to kind of double it and I guess could be eliminated but you know would wouldn't be noticed by the outside world or doesn't provide any other advantage other than headroom and storage. Is that
correct? Correct. And that little area is actually shown on the elevation. It is called out. >> Yep. Um, just what we're looking at here, uh, if we can see my cursor, this this distance from the existing house line and where the new garage will line
up and the front, this is the distance where the the code would ask the garage be set back 16 ft. We are just under 14 ft there in and need a variance. Uh, you can see the back part of the garage um,
extends 3 ft into the 8ft setback. if they were not connected, they could be it could be at that location without a variance. But because it's connected, we do require that um variance. Uh, and the other two variants we talked about before are the driveway widths um
that are well common for the uh neighborhood are are pretty unique here because it would it would create a kind of an odd hourglass situation where you have to actually come in at the uh at the lot line which was actually quite
quite close to the garage. Um I believe just before I promise that we're done with you uh I just want to check one thing. Uh uh but uh Mr. Chairman um I think that's it for our architect. I'm happy to have uh him uh answer any questions
>> members. Any questions of the architect? >> Nope. Please continue. >> All right. Thank you so much. Our last I promise uh witness is our um planner. You know we do have a Dvarian here. Um, so, uh, Nichol, if you could, uh,
Nicholas, um, briefly, uh, again, brief briefly, um, underlined, um, based on the the time, uh, give the the board the benefit of your credentials and and licensing so I can have you accepted as an expert. >> Certainly, I have a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University, a master's
degree in city and regional planning from Ruckers University. I have a law degree from the Temple University School of Law where I received a distinguished class performance in state and local government law. I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. My license is valid. I also
>> We will accept you as an expert in many fields. That's fine. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh chairman, >> uh if you could um I promise this is our last slide. The one more mark 16 just says thank you. So, uh if there's anything you'd like me to show while you're speaking, I'm happy to go back.
uh Nick, but if you could just, you know, briefly explain the the what you were charged with here. Um uh I think we heard the technical side of which variances are needed, but you know, perhaps just uh again briefly take the board through the justifications for uh for them.
>> Certainly. Uh thank you, Mr. Kennedy. This is an application for a D4 F variance as well as associated C variances. Uh this is a specific piece of property known as block 7110, lot 22. That's an undersized lot on the corner
of Moore Street and Henry Avenue. Uh the applicant seeks to uh add a twocar garage as well as uh relocate an existing uh driveway uh to the existing single family dwelling. Um
the zone uh officer as well as the architect did go through the variances. I'll go through them quickly. uh the applicant is requesting relief for the F variance. Uh 33.52 is required whereas 49.3
uh% is proposed. 42% is existing on the site. Uh we mentioned the garage setback variance. 16 ft is required. Uh we're at 13.7 ft uh to the garage. Additionally, the variance for the driveway width at
the curb maximum is 14 feet is proposed is 22 feet. Uh, another driveway variance is for the driveway width at the property line. Max is 10 ft, proposed is 22 feet. You've heard the rationale for the driveway design.
Uh, lastly, uh, the newly created variance due to the discussions with the neighbor is the sideyard setback for the garage. 8t is required and 5T is proposed. Uh the highest order variance that the applicant is requesting this
evening is obviously the D4 F variance um as all the time away from your family and friends has taught you is that the F variance could be granted in particular cases and for special reasons. That's the positive criteria of the F variance. Now New Jersey courts have held that the
F variance is more akin to the D3 variance as than a D1 variance. So in this case, the board's focus is on whether or not this whether or not the site can still accommodate the problems associated with the permitted use, although with a larger floor area than
what's permitted by ordinance. Uh this applicant need not show that the site is particularly suited for the more intensive development. Uh however, the board uh does not have the power to grant the D4 variance unless the negative criteria has been satisfied. And that's our job to show you that the
relief can be granted uh with a showing that the uh variance will not create a substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. Uh moving on, looking at the positive criteria, this certainly advances purposes of zoning the municipal land
use law. Specifically, purpose A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of lands in a matter which will promote the public h health, safety, morals, and general welfare. And that's done not only for the applicants themselves, but for the neighboring
community. Um you heard the applicant's rationale for wanting the enclosed parking space. um the applicant had an injury cleaning off snow, broke a bone. So certainly creates a safer parking environment for the residents and it creates a safer environment for the
neighborhood reducing the turning movements that are conducted in the alley in the rear of the property. Uh this also serves the general welfare by allowing the uh applicants to age in place uh by staying in their home safely
independently in an environment which uh contains their social ties and and familiar environment which support their quality of life. It also advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of
New Jersey citizens. Uh this uh proposed location is certainly an appropriate location for the proposed garage. Helps meet the off- streetet parking needs uh of the applicant. Lastly, um John's impeccably designed building and site certainly promotes a desirable visual
environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Um it's certainly good civic design and arrangement to eliminate one more uh driveway access off of that alley. Uh this site certainly can accommodate
the increased F. The proposal is not increasing any habitable living space. It's a one-story addition uh in the rear of the property. And I would like to note a crucial element of this application. The applicant is still under the required impervious coverage
limit uh demonstrating that the site can accommodate the proposed addition without any substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Uh looking at the C variances, um they can be granted under both the C1 and C2 criteria. Uh with respect to the C1
criteria, this is an exceptional situation uh effect affecting this specific piece of property. Uh the presence of the corner lot as well as the configuration of the property and a lot with uh does create practical difficulties for the applicant's uh
insertion of a more rational garage space and driveway space to the property. uh strict application of the municipal zoning ordinance would create an undue hardship upon the applicant. However, the variances can also be granted under the C2 criteria uh in that
it relates to a specific piece of property. Here we have an undersized corner parcel in the RAT district. Uh certainly the granting of the C2 variances can be done with the same purposes of zoning that I analyzed with the D4 F variance analysis. So with the
granting of the C2 variances, purposes of AG and I of the municipal land use law are advanced without a substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Um in tone in terms of the zone plan which is the master plan. The
20 23 master plan on page 17 outline a vision and the vision is that Princeton will be a vibrant growing and welcoming community with a diverse mix of land uses that accommodate a broad variety of needs. Uh here uh the broad variety of
needs is for uh applicants that are aging, would like to age in place and would like to provide a parking situation that's more uh safe and conducent conducive to their quality of life. Uh so in summary, the D4 F variance uh can be accommodated. The
site can accommodate the increased F. It is not for living space. uh both the granting of the C variances as well as the D4 variance advanced purposes of zoning AG and I the municipal land use law and the granting of the variance will not cause a substantial uh
impairment to the zone planner zoning ordinance >> Nick thank you uh was a lot to get through um much appreciated U Mr. Chairman, certainly happy to have uh our planner available for any questions.
>> Board members, any questions of the planner? >> Okay, but one second, Mr. Kennedy. Uh Karen. >> Yes. >> Um it is 10:44. We have one more application this evening, which I think we will probably not get to. So, we
might want to make an announcement that uh um 22 Green Street, case Z26-726 will be continued to the next hearing. >> All righty. Then for the for the benefit
of those who are listening tonight, uh 22 Green Street is being carried to the July 22nd zoning board meeting. uh the applicant will not be obligated to make any further noticing. Uh the agenda for that
meeting when it comes out will have all the contact information. So if you want want to attend um you'll be able to zoom in and listen and make comment. >> Taylor, is that okay?
>> Yeah. Yep, that should be fine. >> Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Um, so Mr. Chair is saying that's it for our formal testimony. Happy to have our planner um answer any uh questions. If not, I'm um
happy to summarize and and uh and move for the to the next steps. >> Board members, any questions of the planner? >> Okay, Mr. Kennedy, go for it. >> Thank you. Uh I wanted to make sure I could show this last slide. Um much
appreciated for everyone's time here this evening. Uh your professionals for uh assisting with this uh both recently in accommodating the the neighbors request um as well as honestly we've been working on this for about a year and a half uh if not longer um both with
uh uh uh Derek when he was here and with uh with Taylor. Lots like this are challenging. U the the the goals of this client or any homeowner to be able to get in and out of their property easily, remove the the challenges of the of the
alley. Um which by the way is um as as you saw really only supposed to be 10 ft. So when it goes most of the other property owners in the neighborhood on the other paper alleys, if they still exist or the rest of this block don't really use them uh as much as was being
used here. Uh there are certainly challenges with trying to squeeze cars into a 10-ft um alley. Uh there's certainly going to be some benefits from um removing this home's cars from it. Uh the addition challenges of the narrow
lot, the uh lovely but exceptionally large front yard setback which already took a undersized lot and squeezed everything towards the back portion of it already. the I think that the team uh did a nice job of of trying to get a small amount of utility here uh for the
homeowner. Um solve quite a few problems and not only without any detriment, but in a pattern that actually has been mimicked uh up and down Henry Avenue multiple times with similarly configured uh driveways uh and u say semi-recessed
attached and and and detached garages. So again, uh thank you all for your time here this evening and again happy to answer any other questions if they come up. >> Okay. Um at this point we're going to go
into the public portion of the hearing. Uh if there's anyone who wants to comment on behalf of this application, indicate that by pushing the raise your hands button at the bottom of the screen and we'll recognize you. Claudia, uh, do we have anyone who's indicated they want
to speak on behalf of this application? >> There are no raise hands, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, we'll give it a second here. Just let me play stragglers here. Okay, hearing no one wanting to speak.
We'll close the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Kennedy, you can summarize before we go into executive session. >> Again, I'll I'll I'll just take the opportunity to to hopefully give you a few more minutes of your evening back in just to thank you. Um rather than repeat myself again, uh much appreciated uh
particularly sticking it out for a long evening like this. >> Okay, we are going to go into executive session. Board members, any questions, comments, or motions? Michael,
did you want to say something? >> No, I I didn't have anything. >> Oh, sorry. I thought I saw you raise your hand. Okay. Um, any any board members care to say something? Someone like to make a motion.
>> Just one clarification, Mr. Kennedy. Um, does your client then need to expand the the curb uh the driveway with at the curb? Do they need an increased curb cut? Because they would need approval then from the
mayor and council for that. So um we as far as the alley is concerned we understand that the curb cut will require a permit regardless of the variance granted um and from from council. Uh so we will be seeking seeking that uh this version of the
application will um and uh uh Mr. Mr. Cruz, correct me if I'm wrong here, but while initially we were looking to slightly reconfigure the alley entrance, we are no longer um looking to do that now that we've pushed the garage back. So, assuming I have that right, I I
believe we'll just need the standard request for a street opening. Uh I believe from the from the town >> for for the driveway to the garage. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Okay. I I asked because then I don't know if the board wants to just make that a condition of approval, which they've
done in the past, that you have to get your driveway opening permit. >> Yeah. >> Condition or not, we know we have to to get that and we won't we won't be constructing without it. So, >> I apologize. We had no one who raised
their hand, right, for public comment, >> right? >> That's correct. Nobody. Thank you. >> All right. Does someone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Conditions. >> Yeah. I move approval of the uh Dvarian for the F and the uh I guess a C2 for the garage setback, the driveway width,
the driveway width at property line and sideyard setback and >> the condition that we talked about the driveway approval >> and the condition of the driveway approval as Karen
expressed it. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Did that Stephen? >> It was. >> Okay. Do we have any discussion on the motion? >> Okay. Can you call a roll?
>> Miss Chen. Yes, >> Miss Coulson. >> Yes, >> Mr. Floyd. >> Yes, >> Mr. Strivever. >> Yes, >> Mr. Stein. >> Yes, >> Miss Donna. >> Yes,
>> Jeremy Cohen. >> Yes, >> is approved. Thank you. >> Thank you all so much. >> I just wanted to note that um the noticing uh was in order for 22 Green Street. So you do have jurisdiction and
in carrying the application you are taking jurisdiction of it. That's how you're going to carry it to July 22nd. So just wanted to note that for the record. >> Thank you. Okay. Um that's it for the
evening. We'll adjourn the meeting and see you all next month. >> Good night everybody. >> Good night. me.