Okay, good evening. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on March 25th, 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 March 20th, 2026 and by posting a copy on the municipal
website homepage as a public notice. That's it. Good. Okay, Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Sure. Miss Chen, >> here.
>> Miss Coulson, >> here. >> Mr. Floyd, >> here. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> here. >> Mr. Tannen, >> Mr. Stein, >> here. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Dokin,
>> Chairman Cohen, >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have two resolutions this evening. The first is uh 68 Clear View Avenue, block 7307, lot 12 in the R17
zone. It's case number Z25-716. Um I believe that was emailed to us. Uh Karen, do you want to explain the the uh resolution or is it okay as it's written? >> I think Clear View is fine as written.
It's 344 Nassau that we need to discuss. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I talked about Clear View. That's right. Okay. So, Clear View was in your packets. Um, does anybody have any questions regarding it? Questions, comments, or motions?
Anyone? >> I move we approve. >> Thank you. Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. Okay. Any discussion? If not,
Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Miss Coulson? >> Yes. Mr. Shriber, >> yes. >> Mr. Stein, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, now I got a little ahead of myself. Okay, the next case, the next
resolution, case number Z25-651, 344 Nassau Street, block 32.01, lot 214 in the AHO-2 zone. Now that Karen um do you want to discuss the resolution? >> Well, one condition it's condition
number 11 and I think everyone's in agreement that there's one marked parking space for each affordable housing unit uh with the remainder of the parking spaces to be assigned by the applicant. the second sentence in that um condition
uh that the applicant will provide copies of written leases for offset parking spaces for its commercial tenants. Um the staff has raised some questions. Um and so I guess the question for you is uh
do you want to keep this condition? Uh I know uh Chris Tar and the applicant I believe are here tonight and they also wanted to speak to that. So Claudia if you could move them over. >> I see Chris Tar on the uh his name on
Chris. >> Good evening. Good evening >> Chris. I think um pursuant to our email today, I don't know if you had some comments on uh the applicant providing leases for offsite park off-site parking spaces.
>> Sure. Daniel's testimony at the hearing was that he's there are spaces available in the neighborhood. The most likely place he could park is at Bank America uh four or five doors down. But to lease from them, he said you have to pay the
money right away in order to get the lease right away. This building isn't going to be modified for two years. So if the if the language here could just say that uh the conditioned occupancy of the commercial space uh on obtaining uh
sufficient leases to for the people who are going into the space, we we'd appreciate that. It the staff and we both agree it's a little vague right now. It doesn't say how many spaces or when and we just like to clarify it. >> Well, how >> and so what does the does the board have
a reaction on this >> just to the number of spaces for the commercial tenant? We didn't we didn't discuss the the potential number of occupants. No, >> Daniel said he was going to look around
for and and and rent to an organization that had a need for very few cars, parking. That was his testimony. >> How many square feet is the commercial?
>> Daniel, are you on? >> Did Daniel get elevated? >> I don't see him. >> I don't see him either. I I I hesitate to to say I I thought it was 2,000 feet to 2500 feet.
Uh he's he said he's here. He said he's he's watching. Can Can somebody elevate him? >> Let's see. >> I I don't see him on the screen. >> Can he raise his hand? Daniel, can you raise your hand if you're your name isn't on the
I can just ask him how many square feet he's >> Oh, here it is. It's iPhone 2. I see a hand raised next to >> iPhone 2. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay, there he is. Daniel,
>> he's you're muted. And also you're here. >> Hello. Hi, everybody. >> Hello. >> Um the space, if I recall, is um around 2,000 square feet. U my testimony at the
time was we ended up landing on two of the parking spaces. Uh one each would go to one of each of the affordables. the remaining would go to residential with the exception of one which would go to
the commercial. Um I did provide some leases at the presentation um that and letters of intent that I have uh but my understanding was it was approved without the leases being
provided as a contingency. It was just as a way of exhibiting that there are spaces in the area and like Chris mentioned, Bank of America being the big one where they are willing to le spaces but not willing to give letters of of
intent in advance. >> Yeah, I do remember that. So, if we really didn't specify the number of spaces, I I don't really And we've only got effectively only one for the commercial space.
A a actually I was just going to correct you Daniel. I believe the discussion finally ended with the board saying that one mark parking space for each affordable housing unit and the remainder will be assigned by you as the developer.
>> Yeah, correct. Right. >> Okay. But I'm sorry, Steve, I cut you off. You were starting. >> No, no. So, I'm just wondering, do we have any did we have any number of spaces assigned to the commercial?
>> No. No. No. >> Okay. Well, if we didn't, there's nothing that really we can do about that now, I believe. And >> I agree with that. But the question I guess is do you still I think what uh
Chris Star suggested was that the applicant would provide copies of written leases for off-site parking spaces for commercial tenants upon occupancy. Not now. >> Well, we we talked about the potential
saying before before the building is occupied or the commercial space is occupied, >> correct? >> He would have to produce the leases. The thing is, it leases for how many spaces? I mean, 2,000 square feet of rental
space, you know, could could be eight cars. I don't know if it's that's going to be necessary, but it's going to be some number. >> Daniel's testimony was that he he doesn't know who's going to be in there. He's he's looking for one significant
tenant that doesn't have a lot of cars, but he I think the discussion was around the fact that that becomes a private matter. If he can't find enough parking spaces for a proposed tenant, the tenants's not going to rent there. But if they say we need five, eight, he'll
have to go over to Bank America and rent eight spaces for them. Well, I think I unfortunately I tend to agree with you that if he can't produce the parking then he may not have the tenant.
So, um so I guess we have to say I guess we're what we're going to do. >> Jeremy, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Yeah, it's Mike. Um my recollection is
there was actually no condition regarding having to produce leases upfront for the commercial. Um I was actually surprised when I read that in the resolution. So that's that's
my recollection. That's as far as I understood as well is that that wouldn't be a requirement though it would be in my interest obviously if needed to allocate to you know to have those spaces some which I already which
I can already have access to some that I would be able to have access to in the future but that it wouldn't be specifically a resolution kind of compliance issue >> that's that's my occup infancy issue. >> That's my recollection, too. There was
no specifying of what's in the resolution regarding >> Yeah, I I think you're right. You are right. >> So, then come out entirely then. >> But the question is then just as a question, you're not going to
give away residential parking spaces to the commercial tenants. That's not my intent. I think that there's going to be more of a demand for the residential units, but if if all the if enough residential units have passed
on the parking spaces, then I would open up remaining spaces to commercial tenants if they're available. >> But the it would be prioritized to the residential units first. >> Okay. All right. Well, let me ask the board
one more question then. Um, we would normally, you know, indicate the bases for why variances are approved. So, if the applicant is not going to have to provide offsite or they will,
you know, if if they find it necessary, um, the basis for the board approving the minimal on-site parking would be What? >> Well, I would think just trying to think it through that the
>> the applicant has basically said this is market driven. If he finds tenant the only tenants who um he can find require parking, it's uh his responsibility to himself to find them parking.
So, if we were to say that the applicant, you know, the board's finding is the applicant will provide off-site parking for its commercial tenants if required by the tenants or if he deems it um necessary or something like that.
>> Well, I mean, again, I I would think and I'd like the comments of other board members to say as necessary because we have I mean, it's it's I'm quite frankly not as concerned about the commercial space parking. I'm concerned about the
residential parking and um you know we we want the housing and we want the affordable units and the commercial space is you know up to the developer and if he can't uh provide parking for tenants then the space is going to go
empty. So I don't think we need to put a requirement in there. I mean if anything that the that uh you know as to Mr. Barski's statement that residential tenants will be given preference
for any vacant spaces. >> Okay. I guess my my thought Karen right >> to your question um if your question and especially as if it's coming from someone else has an
application for a different um project and we give a variance for less than the amount and no specification. Um,
how do we justify what we give in in this application? >> Well, that's pretty much what I'm asking. I mean, if you >> That's what I thought. I >> yeah, if you look in paragraph 11, in the middle of that paragraph, I have a sentence that said the board notes there'll be minimal on-site
parking, but that um you know, the approvals condition on the applicant providing leases offsite for its commercial tents, which was my understanding, but I but I see now from board comments that I
I may not have, you know, um I may have been relying on earlier comments. So, uh >> perhaps that's why I'm trying to find a a milligram here. There is minimal on-site parking, but that um
you know, the applicant will determine if off-site parking is is needed for his tenants and if so, you know, something like that. Well, I guess my my thought um is
you know you can reference he has identified potential um and actually produced some leases. >> Correct. >> So is that's that's a step in in the right direction if there was a another
application. Um, and I think that the sites, the close ones were acceptable to the board. We could we could word it that way. Um,
and anything more that I don't know the I fall back in the past not with zoning but with other stuff he will endeavor to secure. Do we want Michael? Do we want to say
anything about the statement that he made regarding um getting a signed lease um this early in the process? So producing signed leases only when the space is
actually available, the commercial space is available for occupancy. >> Talking about that and I thought that the conclusion was no, just take it out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I can't say yes to that, Steve.
>> Okay. Yeah, >> I can't follow >> all I'm all I'm all I'm asking about is really just a um >> right >> a basis and as Michael points out so that for future applicants if they also
say well I know my requirement is 25 spaces but I only want to provide eight and I know you approved that before so I'm really you know I'm very similar situation so
let me provide eight spaces. So, um well, what about the board notes there'll be minimal on-site parking, but that the applicant has identified potential off-site parking spaces um
and will endeavor to secure such parking. If required by tenants, is that is that acceptable to the applicant or
>> Yes, surely prior prior to occupancy, >> right? Prior to occupancy. Okay, >> that's what I was referring to, Michael. Okay. >> But the word the use of the word endeavor is really just we're punting,
right? >> Yeah. Well, >> yeah, you don't want to say that on the record, Steve. >> Okay. >> Also on page 18, number 11 has a similar sentence. Just while we're cleaning >> here, page 18. Yes, that's what we were
talking about, Chris. We were going to take that second sentence out. >> Yes. Right. that that that's similar to what we're talking about on 11 on page 16. >> Yeah. >> Well, thank you very much. I think that clears it up from the applicant's point of view.
>> Does anybody else have any um issues they wanted to raise? >> Karen, I do. >> Yes. >> One um it's under the heading of use variances. Um it's about halfway through. Yeah. >> And the last sentence says the uh the
two affordables will be on the ground floor. Yeah, that's that's incorrect. >> Hold on a minute. I shouldn't say that. Just >> only one will be on the ground level, >> right? And one's on the third. So, I thought you wanted to just fix that. >> Page nine. >> Got it. Got it. Got it.
>> Good catch. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Do we want to say more specifically that it's the front unit? >> Absolutely. >> The three-bedroom unit. Yeah. that
>> it's it's the one that's um near um Harrison right on that >> is the street. Yes. Okay. Got it. So, how do we do this now? Do we vote on it now? >> Yes. Well, since we
>> since on certain variances we had different votes, I guess what we're going to have to do is uh I guess what we'll have to do is is go through each one. We'll say it's a roll
call vote on the resolution and memorialization and then we'll go through each set of variances and we'll have to uh take a roll call vote on each one. So we've got so this is our roll call vote
on the resolution and memorialization. Uh first for the Dvariances and again only those well in this case everybody who's here tonight George was not in attendance but everybody else voted yes. So, you'll all be able to
vote um on on on this uh motion to memorialize. >> So, CL, if you could do the roll call. >> Karen Karen. Um Claudia, sorry. >> Yeah.
>> Um um Mr. Shrivever said voted no. >> No, he didn't vote no on the defense. He voted no on everything else but not on the D variance. >> So we're doing just the the D variants now. >> We're doing the D variance and we're
just going to go through this list because we have varying many of them. It was only Stephen who voted no. But we have one other one where it was Eve and Steven. >> Correct. >> So let's begin with the Dvariances. >> Okay.
Miss Chen, >> yes. Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Did you get Mr. Shrivever?
>> Oh, Mr. Shrivever, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. And next, it's roll co vote to memorialize. Uh, >> Karen, don't we need a motion and a second? >> Yeah, we do. Yeah, we do.
>> A point. Okay, good point. All right, let's uh let's let's start again. So, roll call vote on on memorializing the devariances. Do we have a motion? >> I'll move to approve.
>> Okay, a second. >> I'll second. >> All right. >> Okay, Claudia, let's try it again. >> Miss Ten, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever,
>> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Do we have a motion in a second now to memorialize the sideyard setback bearings? >> I move. >> Okay.
>> Second. Anyone? >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Who was that? >> That was Bernice. Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes.
>> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> All right. Then we have memorialization for the rear yard setback. >> I'll move it. >> I'll second. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes.
>> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> German Cohen, >> yes. All right. Then we have memorialization for the parking spaces. >> I'll move it. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> German Cohen, >> yes. >> The memorialization for the percentage of compact parking spaces.
>> I'll move it. Oh, I'll second. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> And the memorialization of the parking
setback. >> Move it. >> I'll second. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, yes. Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes.
>> And then memorialization on the distance between buildings on the same lot. >> I'll move it. >> Oh, second. Okay. >> Who is that? Bernice. Bernice.
Oh, Miss >> Ken. >> Yes. Miss Coulson no um E voted no so she can't vote on >> I have >> I thought that was on the final
site plan approval and the sign >> No and that No, that was my mistake, Claudia, and I corrected it on my draft, but I'm sorry I didn't correct it on yours. I will. So >> yeah, he voted no on the variance for the distance between the buildings.
Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> And then we have finally memorialization of the preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waiver.
>> I'll move it. >> I'll second. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. Mr. Floyd. >> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> I think that's it. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Thank you everybody. Good night. >> Good night. Okay. We have three applications this evening, all of which we have previously
heard portions of. The first one will be case number Z25-653, 154 Prospect Avenue, lot block 5501, lot 16 in the R2B zone. I believe this didn't need to be noticed. Is that
correct? >> That's correct. It's uh the board's heard this twice and it's since been carried I think for a couple of meetings. >> Okay. Who is going to speak on behalf of this applic Well, let me before we
start. Um Miss Grivens, um Mr. Ber, who's going to do you have any comments you want to make on your memo? I'll just uh give an update um
on the currentation. >> So just to refresh your memory, the applicant appear before I need to be sworn. Sorry. Karen, >> you swear from your testimony this evening will be truthful. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. As you'll recall, the
applicant appeared before the zoning board at the September 24th meeting and presented their case. um regarding the construction of an enclosed porch with a rooftop deck area and sauna. The applicant revised the plan um based on public comments and the
board comments. The original plan proposed a 425 ft enclosed screen porch with a fireplace rooftop deck containing a 70 foot sauna. The total proposed floor area was 495 ft which resulted in a F 33.1%.
The current plan reduces the area of the enclosed porch 425 square ft sorry um from to 404 ft and eliminates the rooftop deck in the 70 foot on aa sauna.
The applicant uh also made the following change. He lowered the height of the fireplace chimney above the second floor from approximately 15.5 ft to three and a half feet and raised the wall on the side of the property that faces 168 prospect from 24 in to
488 in. Um the resulting F has been reduced from 33.1 to 32.5%. Um it's a Dvarian requires five uh affirmative votes to pass. Um, and
that's just an update on the application and I'll any questions otherwise I'll hand it over to the applicant. >> Board members, any questions of Mr. Brerier? >> Okay. Um, who is going to present this application from the owners?
>> I'll I'll begin, Mr. Chair. Uh, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> My name is Neil Yasin. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Cullen Indyman here in Princeton. Um although I'm not in Princeton at the moment, but here in Princeton. Um
as noted by Derek, this is an application for a Dvariance for an exceedence of the F limit. Uh the permitted F in the zone is the R2B zone is 30%. The existing condition is 29.9%.
Um, this house incidentally was not built by the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Peepsac. They purchased it from the builder. The proposed F is 32.5% and as Derek noted that requires um
variance testimony. The uh we have three potential witnesses tonight and one definite witness. Um, Mr. Uh Peepsac, the owner and applicant is available. Uh Tom Bio, the architect who testified at
the October meeting is here. Uh and then most significantly, uh a licensed planner, Chuck Latini, Charles Latini will be testifying tonight. There was a consensus at the end of the October
meeting that in order to uh best ensure a good record and a proper decision that planning testimony should be presented that uh testimony can only be presented by a licensed planner. So unless the
board wants uh Mr. bio to go back and just give you a brief uh refresher on what is being proposed. We could move to Mr. Latini. >> Board members, would you like the architect to summarize where we left it?
>> Yeah, >> I wouldn't mind that. That'd be that'd be good. That'd be very helpful. >> Okay. Um >> why don't we just Yeah, why don't we swear in your witnesses for the evening? Um Mr. Yoskin, but everybody is muted.
So, gentlemen, if you could unmute. Um, do you all swear or affirm your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful. >> I do. >> I do. >> Thank you, >> Baron. I have a housekeeping uh question. >> Yeah.
>> You marked into evidence at the October hearing of some of Mr. B's exhibits. >> Yeah. >> Um, they don't need to be remarked, do they? >> No. >> Okay. >> No, they don't. Tom, um, can you appear? There you are.
>> He's on screen. >> Could you, um, go back, refresh the board as to what, uh, the project looks like? And, um, you, I think at the October hearing, you
offered a cover sheet and then you had a drawing as well. I think those would be the two that would be useful to look at. >> Okay. Well, to reiterate, this is an application to introduce a covered area of um a structure over an existing
patio. The usage of the patio and the usage of this covered structure are identical. Therefore, the homeowner's entertainment purposes to be able to sit out there and enjoy the outdoors and have some shade. Um we always felt that a covered area is better than an
umbrella area. umbrella areas are exempt. And so we felt strongly that this application could possibly, you know, get reviewed and approved by the zoning board of Princeton. In the first couple of hearings, we had some push
back from neighbors who had concerns. And I incorporated the points of those concerns into the second presentation, which like Derek indicated, I brought the structure in one foot further from the property line. Um, that was not mentioned. I did raise
the knee walls of the interior structure so that when they're sitting down at 48 in, they're pretty much behind a wall so that the neighbor wasn't necessarily getting direct voice from them. We also eliminated the entire usage of the rooftop uh and just kept it on the first
floor which in turn lowered the chimney so its visual um did get improved as well. Since that meeting, we felt we needed professional testimony and that's why uh a planner was brought in and and and Mr. Deepsac properly said, "Well,
let's get an attorney and let's do this the right way." And so since then, we've just been in planning mode and discussion mode and we are here tonight hopefully to um re litigate this potential benefit of putting an outdoor
covered roof uh over an existing patio. Um that's really the application as I recall it >> and we did have I'll show you you these are in your packets. These are uh renderings that were done by us at the office to show the three-dimensional
quality of this. And then of course you all have the architectural plants um which are made up of I think six sheets. Let me count them. Oh no more. One, two, three, four. Yeah,
something like that. Six or seven sheets. Um, does that um meet your request of me, Neil? >> Yes. Yeah. The only uh thing I wanted you to clarify, I was just looking at the plans before the meeting. It looks like there's two components
um to the to the to the porch is one is the what we're referring to is the enclosed porch and then next to it is an outdoor dining area. Is that correct? the uh that's an existing patio. We just threw a table on there to show how it would be used.
>> All right. No, so you you answered my questions. I don't know if the the board has any questions. >> Board members, any questions of Mr. Bile? >> No. Okay. >> I'm available. Thank you very much. I'll mute.
>> So So as as we move on to Mr. Latini, I just want to mention that the the the porch has been referred to as an enclosed porch. It's only enclosed by screens. And one of the things that Derek explained at the October meeting is if there were no screens and it was
just completely open and you could put your hand out under the roof, then there would have been a I think it was a 112 foot square 112 square foot exemption from the F allowance, but the fact that
it's going to be screened means that under your ordinance, it's considered to be an enclosed porch. Um, not every municipality does it that way. In lots of municipalities, a porch with a roof is, uh, not considered enclosed, but
that's the interpretation here in um, here in Princeton. So, if we could move on to Mr. Latini. >> Good evening, everyone. Um, Chuck, I'm gonna That's if you don't
mind the informality, I'm going to address you as Chuck. >> No, not at all. >> Um, could we begin uh with you stating your qualifications for the board and by that I mean education, experiencing experience,
licensing, and prior testimony as an expert. >> Sure. Sure. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'm Chuck Latini. I am a licensed planning practitioner since 1997 uh which is basically shortly after
graduating from Ruckers with a degree in environmental planning and design. I have worked uh since that time as a licensed professional dues paid continuing uh my license since then. I've worked in numerous municipalities across the state and testified before
every board in Mercer County but for Heightstown Burough, believe it or not. Um, I am current city planner and board in town city as well as township planner in Euing. >> Serve as zoning officer as well. So, >> we will uh I'm familiar with you and
your work and I will accept you as an expert. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chuck, moving on to the substance of the application. Have you reviewed the project that is the subject of the application? >> I have indeed. Yes.
>> Have you reviewed the applicable F ordinance? >> I have. >> Have you formed an opinion as to whether the exceedence of the F limit meets the requirements for the graining of a use variance under section 70 of the
municipal land use law? So I have and uh if you'll allow me to uh explain all my research. >> Exactly. I would like you in in narrative fashion to explain your reasoning to the board. >> Okay. Thanks Neil. Um so Mr. Chairman
board I was engaged to evaluate the proposed improvements and provide uh planning analysis and testimony as this requested F variance. At its core, as you know, the application becomes necessary not because of a meaningful change in the use or intensity of the
use, which is customary for a lot of devariances or density, but in this case, we're looking at uh how the ordinance defines floor area and the peeps desire to mitigate any potential impacts of their enjoyment of their
yard. It is a D4 variance where bulk type control is tied to building form not use intensity. So Princeton's F calculation includes roofed and covered areas as you know even those that are not usable living
space. I suspect that's for reasons on how building mass may present itself within neighborhoods. Um and so here the proposed addition introduces walls and screening around what is effectively an already outdoor space. Um the
architectural refinement while improving function and aesthetics triggers a disproportionate zoning impact because of how it's counted as floor area even though it's not materially increasing the intensity of the single family use. So from a planning standpoint, the
board, you know, is required to focus less on the arithmetic outcome or should focus or not required to uh on the arithmetics and more on the actual impacts of of the building form. So
first, there's no change in use. This remains a single family residential property, fully consistent with the zone. Um, obviously as you've heard in past meetings which I've I've listened to, you know that the house was originally built and maxed out the F.
Second, there is no meaningful increase in bulk or visual impact. The improvements are located in the rear yard architecturally integrated and substantially reduced from the original proposal as reflected in revised plans. Further, there's a similar structure
right next door. Um, third and importantly, in response to neighbors concerns, the project represents an environmental and operational improvement. In my opinion, what was previously an open wood burning condition at grade and and an outdoor space actively used is now being
replaced with a contained and cleaner gas fire feature, which reduces smoke impacts and directs any emissions upward rather than laterally across the joining properties. Finally, when viewed in proper context, the resulting F is not
anomalous. So, the comparative analysis I performed on similarly situated homes in Princeton's commonly falls or falls within the same range, particularly on smaller lots. So what we have what we're
left with here is really no int intensification of the use no meaningful change in neighborhood character a reduction of potential nuisance impacts and a trigger and a variance that's triggered largely by words mechanics not necessarily the impacts of
intensification and use. This is precisely the type of situation where the variance process is intended to be implied and it's appropriate that you're here entertaining this. So while technically a use variance a D variance it is is duty of the applicant to
demonstrate that the site can accommodate the problems associated with this increased floor area. Um, so what we're what we're going to do is approach as if it's a regular old F variance and not diminishing in terms of the proofs
we need to put on. So a review of the surrounding neighborhood, you know, when I when I looked at all the sales data and, you know, that's that's immediately located on the in and the the town's website. Um, you know, the proposed
improvement is located entirely within the rear yard and is largely screened for public view. The design is integrated and the F increase does not materially alter perceived mass or neighborhood character. So when looking
at the F analysis um that I've that I've worked on, you know, the surrounding neighborhood demonstrates an adjusted F value of that falls within a range of 2 to 32 range with similarly sized parcels
approaching or exceeding the proposed F value when evaluated on a habitable floor area basis. So how does the the project stack up against our need to weigh the positive and negative criteria? So let's start with the the
positive or the special reasons. The advancement of the purposes of the municipal land use law. So the special reasons for this application are ground in the advancement of the purpose of zoning. Um under Burbage case uh the courts have recognized that improvements
which reduce adverse impacts and enhance site functionality can constitute special reasons. Here the proposal replaces open wood burning conditions with a controlled gas feature, reduces lateral smoke to adjoining property and improves the usability and containment
of space for the enjoyment of the Peepsack family. These are both functional and environmental improvements. To further address the special reasons, uh, the applicant promotes purposes A I
M of the municipal land use law, specifically A to encourage municipal action and guide appropriate use or development of lands in the state to promote public health, safety, and welfare. Purpose A is advanced by facilitating a reasonable residential improvement that remains consistent with
the permitted use and established neighborhood character. The proposal improves the functionality and design of the existing residential property by enclosing and formalizing an already utilized outdoor space. So it makes the property better not necessarily bigger
in a meaningful way. Purpose I which is pro desire visual environment is promoted through the architectural integration of the addition uh which improves the visual environment and creates a more cohesive and contained design. The proposed improvement
replaces open wood burning condition and controlled gas feature and and reducing and better directing emissions. And then lastly, I purpose M is satisfied by enabling the efficient use of an already developed property where the proposed
improvement enhances functionality without expanding the use, occupancy or intensity of the site. So to put a finer point on the intensity question under Kaufman, the court emphasized that bulk variances may be supported where the proposal does not
represent a substantial intensification of use. So here the use clearly remains solely single family residential. The space already function as outdoor living area. um the increase of large is largely a
function of the ordinance measurement and not necessarily activity. So it's not a case of overdevelopment. It's a refinement of the existing use. So rec so taking that and then reconciling all of that against the Medici standard
which speaks more directly to use variances, it reinforces that boards must evaluate whether the relief advances planning purposes rather than frustrates them. In this instance, the F exceedence is driven by how Princeton defines covered space. So clearly, we
have to put on our proofs. The addition of walls and screening converts an already utilized area into something counted differently under the use under the ordinance. The board is not being asked to approve additional density, but to recognize a
technical overages that does not translate to into real world determinant. We do not have to prove particular suitability, but rather the courts have have allowed a more flexible application for bulk type D4 variances.
This is appropriate because the improvement is confined to the rear yard. It is buffered and screened. It fits seam seamlessly within the established residential pattern of of the neighborhood and it does not alter circulation, drainage or neighborhood dynamics. When you step back from the
ordinance math and look at the the actual planning impacts, this application advances the purposes of zoning, improves existing conditions, and does so without increasing the intensity of the site. This is exactly the application that satisfies the positive criteria under New Jersey case
law. So, when viewed through the town's own calculations, this application is a modest 2.6% 6% technical assistance driven by how covered space is measured not by meaningful intensity of of use.
So in my professional opinion the positive criteria here are met and are clearly satisfied and the application can be granted and considered by the board without substantial detriment to the public good or impairment to the zone plan with the positives outweighing
any negatives. So that's my testimony >> and those those last two factors you mentioned those are the negative criteria in the statute. Right. >> Correct. >> If you could just repeat that for the board how it complies with the negative criteria. >> So when viewed when viewed on your
calculations the application is not about overdevelopment. It's the modest 2% 2.6% 6% technical exceedence and the positive criteria are met as the application can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
or impairment of the zone plan with the positives outweighing any negatives. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, that concludes our uh presentation. >> Okay, board members, do you have any questions of the uh planner?
>> Yes, Michael. Um so the big thing is um one of the is how Princeton defines the covered space. You say
how Princeton defines the covered space is not going to change. >> Correct. So I'm trying to figure out how we differentiate from similar applications that come in
if they come in after this. That's a question to you. >> Well, first your your application of the ordinance is is to be applied on a case-byase basis. there's no there's no
ability or or or no uh uh uh precedent you set by by doing this. So, so in this case here, we're talking about taking a uh a patio that's already being used, covering it, and and and
yes, I mean, you're the technicality of your ordinance puts puts this over F. Our proofs though when you when you look at how they're applied is not to a standard that's that's to a a a use variance that is typical where
the the standard is even higher than what we're trying to prove. This is about um you know a bulk standard in essence here. We're not intensifying the use of the property at all. We're just we're actually in in my opinion taking a
space that's already being used and then and then putting it within um a a framework that you know the peepsacks can ameliate the noise, emilarate the smoke and enjoy their property without without impacting the
neighbors. >> Mr. Floyd, if if I can just make an offer. Um I think the answer one answer to your question actually lies in your agenda for tonight. So this is a particular um
factsp specific and sightspecific setting which is taking an existing grade patio and putting a roof on top of it. The next application is an application to um uh build a new home on top of an existing foundation, but it
requires exceptions because of a sideyard setback and a height setback ratio. And then the third one actually involves variances for an addition to an existing dwelling. Neither of these are analogous to what you are hearing
tonight. This is a very specific situation which is just taking an open ongrade patio and putting a roof over it. >> So I I'm what's the point? I mean each application is reviewed individually.
The other two are sight specific and will be reviewed in context. Well, I think al not think um I could walk outside my door and I have a patio
probably about the same size and I meet all the setbacks so I could u do the same thing
that's and I assume I'm probably at the at the F max. So I I'll just say that and I I imagine there's a number of people on my screen right now that probably have a patio up. >> Yeah. And then but if I if I may, Mr.
Floyd, you know, if you were to to do that, it was it'd be your right to bring it to the board and and design it with with the intentions that the Peeps Sachs have have done for your consideration, of course, and and to weigh those
against, you know, not doing it. Um, so, you know, here here we have something that has been, you know, thoughtfully designed and, you know, presented in a way with with with real intention, right? This wasn't just throw a roof on it, let's call it a day, help my
neighbors, you know, this is this is really looking at, you know, what are we doing? How are we doing it? So that we don't have to hear anybody cuz, you know, they're busy people. They don't want they don't want to they don't want to impact their neighbors. They don't want their neighbors having to complain about them or anything else like that.
So, so here we got a thoughtful design being presented and being presented in a way I think you know warrants um your um your consideration. >> Yes, thank you. I have a question, Steve.
>> Stephen, u >> you all may not be able to answer this or respond to it, but several years ago uh one of your neighbors in the backyard uh requested a variance to build a
larger addition to their home. And at the time of that, the neighbor to the right, if you're facing your house, complained about water runoff, uh, from the neighbors back there. Now, I can't
remember. I don't think you guys were under construction at the time, but you might have been, but I don't remember. You didn't come before the board because you didn't need any variances. But I'm wondering, is there any water issues back there? Is there any water runoff
issues going on now? >> May I answer? >> Yes, >> I I I I believe I'm I was swear in. I hope I that still continues. >> Sure. >> The answer is no. None whatsoever. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And and to put a finer point on that, uh
Mr. Trevor, um you know, here here we're building over an existing patio. So that patio is impervious today and so there's no increase of that area. So any runoff, it would be the same amount of runoff, >> but effectively you're you're building
another room on the house. And the the F when the property was developed was developed to the max as I assume was the one next door. And
the justification for that I question. And as Mr. Floyd said again, that could happen all throughout the community.
And and how do we rationalize this in a house that was new and built to the maximum and now modified to exceed it? other than I'm trying to think of a way to respond. Other than falling back to
Mr. Latini's testimony, which takes this application and puts it in the context of the municipal land use law? I don't I think that's the answer at the end of the day. You know, you characterize this as effectively you're building another
room. Um I I we disagree. This is by any measure. This is not another room. It's not an enclosed heated air conditioned space. Um, it's probably not wise for lawyers
to make personal observations, but I live in I live in Lawrenceville and some years ago after living in this house for about 20 years, uh, we now have lived here at 35, but about 15 years ago, we put a screened in porch on a portion of
our rear deck. It allows us to use that outdoor space. um when it's raining, it's more comfortable when it's hot. And we're all experiencing the phenomena of a phenomenon of of temperature
increases. So, it improves the livability of a lot of homes. And you know, turning back to what Mr. Floyd was saying, other people may say that's a good idea. Now, on
smaller lots in Princeton, when somebody wants to take an o an open patio like our clients have and and put a roof over it, that triggers this requirement, but that requirement in a way is elevating
form over substance. We're not criticizing the ordinance. The ordinance is the ordinance, >> right? >> Mr. Latini's testimony explains why the application meets the purposes of the ordinance.
>> On his interpretation, it meets the purposes of the ordinance. >> Well, no, my interpretation is is that it it doesn't meet the the ordinance. Your your standard here is about the the
character of which this is being exceeding. It's not a an intensification of the use of the property. It you know if if this was a fully enclosed in heated air conditioned addition to the house that put another bedroom in here absolutely intensification
right here. Here it's not here. Here the standard is is just a titch bit lower. Obviously you have neighborhood impacts to consider. You got design impacts to consider. you got effects that you want to emilarate, you know, through any condition that you might put on the
application, but you're really looking at, you know, the design character versus anything else. I I'm not criticizing the ordinance at all. I understand it being in a working for college towns in particular trying to control that cuz you know every every
developer will do exactly what this guy did when he built this house which was maximize the F because they want to get as big as house as they can here it just you know it sort of backfires on the next resident because if they want to do anything to make it their home and to
utilize the space a little bit differently then the ordinance kind of keeps them keeps them confined and That's that you know again that that was the purpose of your zoning is to keep that confinement in place so that you do have to prove why you're going to do
what you're going to do in accordance what we've already found is our standard. So you know here I think you you have we have a case to to be made about creating this seasonal space that the peepsacks can enjoy. I mean they can do everything that they want to do in
that space. they can do it outdoors right now, you know, and they they do with smoke with a smoked fireplace, >> you know, and and which I would I would add, you know, creates more of a nuisance to neighbors and, you know, certainly when you bring your TV outside
and you watch a game outside, there's no attenuation of sound. There's no there's no you could you could put a tarp over that and you know or umbrellas and and and use that space with sound and smoke and everything else going on. >> Sure. >> Well, the fact that it's wood or gas is
is uh you could have an open open fireplace side. They could be a freestanding fireplace that's gas fired. >> It could, but it's not a requirement. >> No, I know. it. So to make that a an argument,
>> it's it's separate and aside from the fact that uh this is still a room. >> Yeah. No, I I I understand that. But it also is again goes to the total package. The design intention is to reduce smoke to get it up above the the height of the
thing. So it is it is it is to be weighed a little bit because it is an intention of the design feature. Um I have a question um for Mr. Latini. Mr. Latini, you testified about um screening and buffering that there's
both buffering and screening in this plan. So um what do you consider buffering and screening? Well, to to me the buffering and screening I is is done through the
through the changes they made which which which steps steps it back off of the edge the side edge of the building. So reduces the impact. So so in some cases some cases you know you you have that side view is is reduced because
it's screened by the by the principal structure itself. And then the landscaping that's that's on the property currently. If you if you wanted further additional landscaping, which I believe peeps have uh evergreens running
down the whole side of the property, um you know, that could be a consideration, but but I think it's fairly well screened from from public view. >> I I agree. I thought that actually it was literal screening that there's there's it's a screened in area, right?
That's >> I think there were two question that the word screen use of the word screening was a little misleading. >> Oh, yeah. Well, but I so to respond to further to Miss Deanna's question, the
the the home to the right when you're looking from Prospect Avenue, the home to the right, which also has a roofed in porch, uh they installed a fairly robust fence and then the Peepsacks planted a lot of evergreens on their side of the
fence. So, not only you getting visual screening, you're getting buffering between uses. The particularly plants like that um give you some sound attenuation. So, I think that that's what he was referring to.
>> Yes. Thank you, Neil. So now the water when it rains would hit the roof instead of the patio on the ground. Does that alter does that alter drainage
on the property at all? >> That's really a question for an engineer. It doesn't increase the impervious cover. We know that. >> Yeah. Water's running off of it today. >> I'm trying to see if there's uh Tom, do
you do you have any How's the down spouts handled here? >> Yes, we're going to control the water that comes off the roof. We don't want it going onto the patio and splashing. So, we're going to have a gutter system and we're going to integrate that gutter into the existing storm water system
that is on the house. >> So, presumably that's taking it to the front. >> Yes, probably. I I don't know where those pipes lead. >> Okay. >> So, that'll actually that that being that being the case, Tom, I think that
>> I think that makes the the runoff >> improves the runoff condition. >> It reduces the runoff. >> Yeah, because right now it just it just stays it runs off the patio and into the yard. >> Yeah, I would agree with that. comment >> question.
>> Yes. >> Uh, what is the uh ceiling height in >> I couldn't understand that. >> Yeah, something's going on with the volume. >> I only have one mic. Uh, what is the
ceiling height inside the porch? Is it around 10 106 or so? >> I'll I'll answer that. Just give me a second. >> 10. It's 10 foot even. >> 10. Board members. Any other questions? >> No. I'd like to hear what the public if
there's anyone has to say. >> We'll we'll go to that after this. I guess I'm still questioning the increase in the F over the maximum. I mean, I understand that it's you made
a a you know, a case for a room that's carefully a room and it is a room that's been designed and integrated into the overall property, but it still is an excess of the F.
Um, let me respond by ask let me ask Mr. Latini a question. Let me respond to that, Chuck. The the case law and the municipal land use law distinguishes between the perfect and the good and that's one
of the reasons that we have variance provisions. So, could you address Mr. Cohen's concern in that context? Can you can you ask the question again? Yeah. >> Yeah. You actually were were telling me
um you were explaining to me that Hang on, let me let me find it my notes. Yeah. You talked about the purposes of having variance provisions in the >> MLUL
>> and graining variances from all kinds of conditions including F. So I mean Mr. Cohen, honestly I take your comment to mean if we're never going to entertain a D4 variance for F. Is that what you were
suggesting? >> No, not at all. Well, in this case, I'm just wondering again, it's a new house. It was built to the to the maximum. It's in an area where the houses around it are governed the same way. It's a it's a fullsize lot. There's no top
topographical problems. It's it's a perfect lot. It there's no hardship on this lot. >> This is not a hardship argument. Um >> I I know. >> Yeah. This is the the municipal land use law and the cases distinguish between
hardship arguments and overall benefit arguments. Yes, this house was built this house was maxed out. >> Not by our client. Um it was your zoning. >> Oh, absolutely. >> So now you're telling >> I don't think there's any use in
debating it anymore. You have your position. I accept it. It's respectful. And quite honestly, chair, I'm not sure why I ask that many more questions. They've made their presentations,
>> but I would I I think you owe me the opportunity to respond to your comment. Basically, what you're telling somebody is a a resident of Princeton that they can't use their house the way that they would really enjoy it
because the person who built the house maxed it out. This is I think you would agree this is not a mega mansion. This is a it's it's it's a they maxed out they maxed out the the impervious cover and they are
>> what's a mega mansion? >> We a mega mansion is the houses we all seen be built with huge footprints and huge numbers of bedrooms. All these people >> that matched us out and didn't didn't need any variances
>> just like this one >> and and all these people want to do >> understood >> is be able to enhance the enjoyment of their home. That's all they want to do. They want to take they you know right now if it rains they have to come inside
>> again. I understand that's all they want to do. I do understand that's all they want to do. >> Yep. I mean, the fact that someone else built it is irrelevant. I mean, when they it was a new house when they bought it and
it was maxed out and the architect as well as you know, you and the planner testified to the fact it was built to the maximum F. That didn't change after they bought the house. That was the condition when the house was purchased. Is this an appropriate time for me to
comment or do we wait for our >> No, please. If you have a comment, make it. >> I think most people would be surprised to find out that their patio was going to end up being called a room
if they put some walls up and a roof over it, frankly. >> Well, I mean, that's a room. Okay. So if if I if I can just add a little bit here, you know, F is is really a
tool used to approximate a relationship between the bulk of a building and and a lot size. It's not it's not a perfect measure, but it's but it's certainly a measure that's that's used to to keep some consistency
of character and intensity of development across an entire town. So it's so you know in this case you know if we were dealing with a lot even a lot next door I didn't do the the analysis but it's but it goes another 20
something feet beyond that. So, so they would they would technically be allowed if this building lot was just a little bit bigger and and it's relatively undersized compared to some of the others. You we wouldn't we wouldn't be dealing with this at all. So, you know,
looking at this cover semi-encclosed space, you know, as as it's evolved into this into this proposal, um, you know, really really our job is to look at how it's how it's designed,
you know, is is it is it hurting the intent of the zone plan? And and in my opinion, it's it's not. It's advancing those purposes of of the municipal land use law that we we spoke about earlier, you know, by advancing a reasonable
improvement. Um, you know, and and looking at um how, you know, it it's designed to effectuate that v visual environment and not impair it. So through good civic design and and
arrangement, I think, you know, we we've got something here that that I I think works. I mean, obviously, you know, everybody's got their their own opinion about it. Um, but I but I do think you're you're well within your your your bounds here as a board to to really give
this a good look. We we function we function to I don't know how to phrase this but effectively the the ordinance requires on this
specific lot has a maximum floor area ratio. This house was built to that maximum. And I can understand, you know, your argument that, you know, to fully appreciate and enjoy the house, they
want this room. But the house was already built to the max. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, with all respect, you keep referring to this porch as a room. >> If this board if this board, since we
need five, we need a supermajority tonight. this board is prepared to deny this application with the idea that this is a room. Before you do that, I would ask both your zoning officer and your attorney to
opine on whether this space constitutes a room. >> Okay. It's, in my opinion, it's a it's a space with with walls and a roof and there's openings in it, but it's an enclosed space. I'd like to hear from
our zoning officer and our >> I would also I would also just like to say that I think this is we're in the gray area zone in a sense. I if if it were that clear-cut, I would ask why why
are we talking about it? I mean, I think if if there wasn't a question, maybe this isn't the main question, but if there wasn't a question as to whether or not this was possible to approve, then I don't think
we'd be hearing it to begin with. Our zoning officer made a determination that this is a space that's included in floor area based on the ordinance. >> So why are >> we so discussing it?
>> Yeah. I Steve, you you understand their their position. They understand yours. >> Mhm. >> I think it's time to move on. >> Okay. and we can talk about it ourselves in
executive session. >> Okay. And make our decision. >> Okay. Do you want to do you want to present anything else right now or should we open this up to public comment? >> No, we have nothing further.
>> Okay. All right. What we'll do is and if the board has no other questions, you can sum up and then we'll open this up to the public if you'd like to say anything prior to to us doing that.
I >> think you do you want me to sum up after the public has spoken? >> Well, you'll have an opportunity to sum up. >> Yeah, I will. Yeah, that's fine. No, that's fine. >> Didn't we ask are we backing off from that? Didn't we ask our attorney and zoning officer to say something or do we
>> I asked >> We could do that. >> You're right. You did. Sorry. >> We could do that in in >> Okay. >> our executive session. >> I just didn't want that to get lost if >> we were prepared to hear that. >> Okay. All right. So, you're saying
there's no need to sum up right now. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, at this point, we're going to open this up to the public. If there's anyone in the public who'd like to speak on behalf of this application, indicate that by uh pressing on the uh on the uh
button at the bottom of the screen, the raise your hands button. You'll be recognized and you can speak. Claudia, do we have anyone? >> We do. Yes. >> Yes. They're at the top of the screen, Steve. >> Okay.
>> The Kings and the Mrs. Pinsky. >> Yes. >> Okay. Well, >> hi. >> So, let's see. We'll just swear you in. I know you've testified before, Mr. Mr. Craig. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I do.
>> And could you just confirm your address for us if you're comfortable giving us that information? The address is 168 Prospect Avenue. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Yes. Um we've heard a lot so we will
have to reply with a lot. First of all, the attorney keeps on speaking uh about just screens and comparing it to our screen passio. Our screen pass is indeed
a roof and only screens. No wall, no fireplace, no nothing. Um second thing is that the architect uh mentioned in the beginning the renderings uh and someone on the board asked for
the ceiling height. What the renderings do not show is that the house already sits I think three or four or five ft above grade level which will put the
room much higher as compared to other houses in the neighborhood that are much closer built to grade level. Um so the fact intensity of use and I'm not
an architect I am just some lay person who lives there but if you build a room without windows because that is what you plan to build an extra room where you can put in windows where there will be a
fireplace and where as mentioned previously very often There will be a TV on the back wall. Saying that that will not increase the intensity of use of that area seems
incorrect because if you want to watch TV in the afternoon, you can now sit in your house in on your patio. Previously, you would have to watch it in house. If there is a TV on the back wall,
the lots are not that big. We will be able to enjoy or not enjoy what they are watching if we are outside. So I don't think that you can say that there will be no nuisance for the
neighbors. Uh also there will be a big visual impact uh where we could look now to the side and look at the sky so to speak. We will now look at the back wall with a
chimney for the fireplace will be a very different uh a very different look. Um also the wood burning conditions um it will be used much more because there is a roof over it and because there are walls that will keep the
warmth uh inside. Um so saying that it's just nice for the people and the visual impact from the street will be very very small. I agree
with that. But for the neighbors who are using their backyard, it will be a nuisance. That's all I can say. And um I think I don't know whether my husband has something to uh to add to that.
>> Do you want me to swear in again? >> Oh, no. You're fine. You're fine, Mr. >> Uh I have very little to add to that. Most of the arguments have been made before. I'd like to repeat or emphasize two small things before I would like to ask Eric Holterman, our architect to
give his professional comment. Uh the first thing is that in terms of uh impact on the neighborhood, a house is not just floor ratio. It's is a threedimensional thing in height. And
the fact that the the ground floor is built at about 45 feet above grade actually amplifies the the height impact of the uh proposed addition. The second thing is that uh as the as chairman go
already mentioned the fact that the house was built by the builder not by the peeps that's absolutely true but by the builder to the full maximum in all dimension allowable makes it very very hard to swallow a precedent of exceeding
that again by another 3%. So, Eric Holderman, our architect, I think would like to make comments, but other neighbors like Area >> Pavlinski, >> Pavlinski can add to that as well.
>> Okay, >> Dr. Kunig, did you say your architect is going to speak to this or you're asking the applicant's architect? >> Either. Is your architect here tonight? >> He is actually called into the Zoom. You don't see his
name is His name is Eric Halterman. >> I don't see Mr. Halter. Oh, wait. I Is that HMR Architects? >> Yeah, HMR Architects. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. I see him. His hand is raised in attendees. >> Buddy, can you move him over?
or otherwise may may be able to continue and can join afterwards. >> He's muted and we would like to see him. >> All right. Well, let's go on maybe to Mrs. M. >> Actually, I'm here now. >> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. >> Holtman. I'll just swear you in again. I know you were sworn in previously. Do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um I'd like to make three points. The first is that there there is of course
the obvious issue of dealing with a devariance where the um developer built a house to the maximum F and then how that's how that's dealt with um at at at a later time when people come back wanting to modify the house. um in apparently in this case where they're
unable to shed any floor area somewhere else in order to be able to comply. We haven't heard anything about anything like that. Um I'm not an expert on this house, but I am an expert on the house next door at 168. Um th that house um is
actually well below the 30% F. Um, it's still a generous house, but 30% uh F in this neighborhood on these lots is actually actually allows for a a fairly generous house. Also, I would say that I scaled the architectural plans for the addition here. There are no vertical
dimensions uh on the plans for the new addition, but um just by scaling them, it looks to be like the top of the roof of the addition would be something like 13 to 14 feet above the above the ground. And um Mr. bio can can um uh
clarify that if he has if he has good information. Um but from the plans that's what it looked like. Uh second point I wanted to make is that the there was mention made of the porch behind number 168. Uh as uh Vera Coning said that porch really is quite dissimilar
than what's what's proposed here. That uh porch really is a couple of columns and a roof. the screens completely roll up into the roof so that most of the year there aren't even any screens and the it's only a screen porch when the screens are activated and roll down to the floor. Otherwise, you actually see
right through it. It doesn't have any walls. Most of the time the screens are up. You actually look right right past it. It's it's it's really quite minimal. Um uh in terms of uh um a detriment to the public good, I I I just want to mention
the design of the of the proposed addition at 164. I if you wanted to design something in a way that would maximize the sound going out to the sides to your neighbors, you would design it exactly this way where you
build a perpend a parallel wall behind the house, put a noisy thing like a TV on that wall, blast the noise towards the back of the house, and I'm I'm not saying that this applicant would ever play anything loud, but sometimes it
happens anyway. Uh blast the noise towards the back of the house. There's nowhere for the sound to go except out the sides of this porch, which um doesn't have windows, doesn't have any any any um uh really solid buffering to prevent the sound from traveling sideways because the sound can't go into
the backyard. Um I think that those are the three points I wanted to make. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Is there do you have any other comments? >> No. >> Okay. you know, as well as your the uh
your clients. Okay, you're you're finished making your comments. Not you, Mr. Holdman, your clients. >> Uh Frank and Very, you're uh muted. >> I'm sorry. Uh no, we don't have anything
additional to add right now. Maybe we can listen to >> Okay, thank you. All right. Um, Claudia, uh, I see another hand raised. >> Great. Miss Pollinski, could you, if you're
comfortable, could you give us your address, please? >> Yes. 170 Prospect Avenue, two doors down from the proposed. >> All right. And do do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful?
>> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, this is the third time that I'm speaking out. Um, and I am reiterating my objection to granting the additional square footage. Um, both my husband and
I have already stated our objections in September and in October. Um there are some very good points being made today and Mr. Con's question of how do you justify this? You cannot justify this.
Um the question about finding livability, improving livability. How can two people not find livability in 4,600 square feet? um the previous meeting uh the
aggressive nature you know nearly threatening voice about smoke and what's entitled to sending smoke was just hard to believe. So today's focus by the planner
and the attorney about benefits in public health safety and welfare by reducing the smoke. the smoke that doesn't need to be there in the first place. It's it's hard to accept
this as a valid argument. The question about changing the neighborhood character that this does not change the neighborhood character. Um I beg to differ. I have lived in this
home for 11 years and we have watched the neighborhood change. If I can um previously we showed how 164 Prospect
exceeds the neighboring houses in both height and mass. And we showed those pictures on screen. the the discussion about the fact that
it was built by a builder. Yes, that same builder built the mirror image of this home four or five blocks further east. That could have been seeing what the impact was. But I would like to um show
you another way how the character has changed. If I could share my screen. >> Sure. Is that okay? >> Yes, it is. >> So, >> before before you proceed, Karen, could these be marked, please?
>> We will mark this as objector. Miss Palinski. Uh, I I don't remember if we marked your previous documents. I think we probably did.
But we'll just call this objector exhibit with the date because I'm not sure what number we're up to. So that would be March 26, 2026. And let's let me ask you, you took these photos yourself. >> Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Um, I'm just trying to give you a flavor for how the neighborhood has changed um by the change by the construction that was uh built there. So on the left, this
is taken um before the demolition of the previous house happened and on the right afterwards. So you see three very large mature trees at the property line that
were acting as screens that were came down in the process. Now I understand that the current owners uh were not responsible for those trees coming down but we as neighbors are seeing the shift
and it is not a positive one. In September we spoke about the number of cars in the front driveway on this narrow lot that often were about five. the only house in the neighborhood that
then had cars lining from the sidewalk to the twocar garage, which maybe had two more. So, I appreciate that after we raised that, there seemed to be a little sensitivity to where five came down to
three or two, but it has been a large change in context. So when you say there's no meaningful change in the neighborhood character, I disagree. And the points in addition to A, which
was cited as public health safety and welfare, I a desired visual environment, M efficient use of existing property. These are choices made for an individual's private
benefit. There is no public benefit here and therefore I don't believe it should be granted. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. >> You're welcome. You can take your screen
down. Thank you. All right, Claudia, is there anyone else who's indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application? >> There are no more hands. >> Okay. So, at this point, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and um
again um the attorney can sum up before we go into executive session. >> So, I don't think a summation is necessary. I think we've kind of beat a
lot of these issues to death, but I do want to clarify and respond to one thing that the last neighbor um uh said, which was this that this is all about private benefit and not about
public benefit. When homes are improved consistent with an ordinance or through the need for variance, it's always for it's always for the benefit of the homeowner. Always. The standard in the municipal land use law is not whether
there's a commensurate benefit to the public health, safety, and welfare. The negative criteria talks about the fact that there has to be no substantial detriment to the public good. And back
in October when Ms. Pollinsky testified, she showed a picture of this house uh from the street. And her argument was, "Look how this house, which my clients were not responsible for
building, look how it's out of character with the adjoining properties because it's taller." And I would add that that includes the house to the right, 168, the the the newly built house. Um, the
fact of the matter is you can't see this proposed porch from Prospect Avenue. You can't see it. So, while neighbors who live close by or abuing certainly have an interest in
seeing uh and a concern about how a house is built. Um the this the notion that there's neighborhood the neighborhood character is changing in part because trees are gone. Trees
that my client did not tear down. That's just not cognizable under the municipal land use law. It's just not I again personalizing my experience. We had two 100-year-old hickory trees in the back
of our yard. They're gone because of a storm. Trees come and trees go. Those trees, which I noticed were pines, are relatively short-lived anyway. 30, 40 years from now, there'll be trees. Again, that's not cognizable under the
municipal land use law or under this case. Princeton has a tree ordinance. Princeton allowed those trees to be removed. You can't penalize my client for that. Other than that, my only question, Mr. chair, if you're going into executive
session, um I'd like to hear from your attorney on the basis for executive session. >> Uh Neil, when they say executive session, the board doesn't mean close session. They just mean now they're going to discuss it and they've closed public comment. >> Okay. >> So that's why you were asked you want to
make any summation because once they start discussing it, they're going to say no more. I understand and I don't think a further summation's necessary but thank you for the opportunity. >> You're welcome. >> Okay board
um let's discuss it. >> Do we want to hear from Mr. Bridger or Miss Gibbons first about the determination on this? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, uh, either Derek or Taylor, can you explain the determination on this that you made on this space? >> Yes, it's uh really dependent upon the definition of F. It's
not an open porch. Porches are exempt from F when there's one side open. This is a screen porch. Made a determination that that's an enclosed porch. Um whether it's a room or not, we don't have a definition of a room, but it it would follow almost under the the
habitable room definition, a living room or enclosed floor space within a dwelling unit. Um but I I don't really see the relevance of whether it's it's F. It's clearly F we've interpreted whether um and that's been consistent. If it didn't
have the screens, then they could get the >> the exemption for the the part of the open porch, but there's still not enough area there to to give them enough to do what they want to do. So, >> right, board members, are you comfortable with
that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, let's um let's discuss it. Questions, comments, motions? I'll I'll comment. Uh so in in terms of the additional
F it's I can uh I I I can understand the um the uh argument that it's not necessarily an intensification
of the use of the space uh since it is outdoor space that is currently ly being used. Um the issue to me is more about the bulk of the of of
the built structure. It it it seems like if that is um noticeable to the neighbors, you know, the vertical element um it seems like it is actually quite tall. the the
fact that the house is elevated and then the porch is kind of meeting that elevation. Um, so it's it's not actually the the the the additional enclosed floor area um that uh I think is
problematic. It's it's kind of the the the volume of it. And um I'm not trying to redesign it, but to me it seems like if it were um if it if it sat lower, if
overall it were lower, um the additional floor area, I I don't think is um is problematic um in in terms of you know, increasing um o overdevelopment and
increasing density or intensity. that the answer I don't think the answer is no I think cuz it's only one piece. >> What are your thoughts? >> Who's speak Mr.
>> I think I don't >> the applicant should mute. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay. I think my comment chair and it somewhat related to that. Obviously, I I worry that
what's being asked does impair the purpose of the zone plan and the ordinance because it was built to the max. There was a comment earlier um that you know if if somehow this this
uh this lot got a little bit bigger it could be done and you know it would be permitted and no one would know the difference. But the likelihood is
that if this lot was bigger, the developer would have built it to the max and we'd be in the same spot. So, I think that's how it impairs the zone
because it's it's a new house. It's there's nothing wrong with the lottery. It just got built to the max. That's all I'm going to say. >> Thank you,
>> Derek. Does uh do you know when the house was built? >> Uh yes. >> Yeah. >> The zoning permit was approved in April of 2021. So it was built in 2021.
Okay, >> board members, any other comments? >> Yeah, I I I think that what they're proposing will be an intensification of the use and that's actually why they're doing this.
So they can use the patio for watching TV. So they could use the patio for sitting around a gas fireplace. So they can use the patio in the rain. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other comments, questions?
I agree with Mr. Bridg's interpretation. And again, I agree with Mr. Floyd's comments. This is a new house and it was built to the maximum. That's the way it was when they purchased it.
So, all right. Does someone, if there are no other comments, do we want to uh does someone want to make a motion? Let me let me just ask one question. Um, as the applicants pointed out, this is not a request for a hardship variance.
So, we're talking about um the C2 I'm sorry, we're talking about uh an F variance. Mhm. >> So, since we're getting ready for a motion, I'm going to assume that the moving party
or I'm going to ask is the moving party going to agree with what I'm saying now that the board's concern is that this floor area ratio variance um although the applicant has indicated
it's surprisingly 2.5% % over the maximum F from the board's perspective. In fact, it is going to cause uh substantial detriment to the
adjacent neighbors and that um it will also impair the zone plan because in fact the house is relatively new house. It was built approximately 5
years ago and at that time it was built out to the maximum of the floor ratio and although as I understand it the board is not blaming the applicant for that it was built legally within the zone
requirements but that uh having been built out to those standards and Derek if I'm right the standards haven't changed correct Uh no. >> Okay. >> There's been changes to the attic definition, but it wouldn't affect this property.
>> Okay. So that since all these uh ordinances have remained in place, um your position is in fact it is causing a detriment. Am I summarizing how the board feels correctly?
And is there anything anybody would like to add? Well, we haven't voted on it yet. >> I know that. I know that. But somebody's calling for a motion, so I don't and I don't know uh which way the motion's going to go. But, >> you know, it's hard. It's hard to
ignore when neighbors feel really, you know, affected by someone who's close. Um and you know there's obviously whole range of how troublesome somebody's
neighbor could actually be um given the opportunity. it might not you know so there's I guess the the I guess the thing that I I am going back to is that it doesn't it it does not seem
unreasonable to to me to have a roof and screens that makes sense to me um and I do think that nobody would
move into a house that had a patio and imagine that it would end up being considered a room. Now, that's what our zoning says right now. But I I'm just I I don't this is not this is not leading to a clear
motion on my part. I'm just having a problem with in some ways us being so strict about how, you know, the I I I think that if if it were clearcut, we wouldn't be talking about it. It is a gray area. And
I feel like we've been a little bit um quick to be saying, well, but it's a room, so forget it. you know, I I I don't know how to get beyond where I am right now, but and I think I'm potentially in the minority, but um No,
I agree with you that it's not that black and white. >> Well, by it's it's not a it's not just a porch. Um it's got partial walls. Uh
And it's in a sense meant to be used further into the season than a screen porch would be used. And again going back to our zoning officer's determination, it's it should
be counted as floor area. >> Could I res I know that the record's closed, but Karen, could I respond to what the chairman just said. >> The Chair. >> Yes. >> Right. >> The Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,
you said it's intended to go beyond what a screened in porch is used for. It's a screened in porch and nothing. The only reason there's a wall at all is was to buffer the neighbor to the left.
There's a 24 in what was originally proposed as a 24-in knee wall that was raised to 48 in in response to concern from the neighbor. That's the only wall. There are no other walls. It's a
screened in porch just like the neighbors to the right. Now, I hear the argument, but there's a TV and there's a fireplace and that changes it to some other animal. We
don't agree. I It's There are no walls other than that knee wall. I just want the record to be clear on >> Karen. Karen. >> Yeah. >> To go back to your question. >> Yeah.
>> Excuse me. Um, yeah, I I agree with how you set it forth on that representing how I feel or what my take is. I I think Karen had asked the board a
question. So, I for one say yes, that's acceptable to me. I mean, Eve pointed out that you haven't taken a vote, and that's absolutely correct. So, it's hard I I we we can't
know until we have a motion um how many uh there's a motion to approve and how many people will support that. So, >> before we get there, I have a quick question. Mr. Latini, I thought I heard
you say that that you were putting in a gas fireplace. Is that true or is it a wood burning fireplace? >> Gas. >> Yes. What? >> Uh, it's it's a gas fireplace. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Sure. >> I just want to I have to kind of disagree with with um Mr. Yasin. Um there is wall, knee wall, whatever you want to call it. Um certainly on two
sides. On the other side, there's a a wall that encloses a chimney. So, there are, you know, substantial amount of wall. >> Miss Deanna, there's only a knee wall on one side. Looking at the property, it's
on the left side, not the right. If the knee wall is what's troubling you, it can be removed from the application. It was put in there because of the board's concern about the neighbor because that house is built quite close to the lot
line, the house next door. >> Mr. Yaskan, I'm looking at the um the three um renderings that we were given and there's a little wall on both sides on two sides. >> Would it be would it Yeah. Would it be
helpful if we could share that screen? >> And who can share that? Uh, let's see. >> I don't have a digital file, but I will respond that the wall on the left at the >> No, no, wait, wait, no. Mr. B, hold on a
minute because I think I mean that that phrase walls been used and so it's important for everybody to be looking at that rendering when we're talking about walls. So, uh, screen, >> can you open that up? Do you
>> I think Taylor has it. Okay. >> Okay. So, now we have this in now you have it in front of you. >> Okay. >> Um, is that a wall to the right as we're looking at that? >> Yes. It always had a 24inch knee wall.
We were raised the one facing the adjacent neighbor to 48. So, you know, both of these can come down right to the ground, but we've always had a 24 in knee wall. We The one on the right is the one we raised. >> Well, then I apologize to the board. I
misspoke. I apologize. >> Tom, can you remove those? Can you remove those knee walls? >> Yes. The only reason from the very beginning I had knee walls is because if you have a dog or you have a cat or sometimes you get this sag in the bottom
of a screen over time because of the weight. Um, so it's always better to have a little bit of a wall and you have electrical outlets that you can plug in. >> But but you could put a you could you could put a railing in it would do the same thing >> probably. I only heard one concern. If we were to
turn the building 90 degrees and literally put a full wall around the fireplace and again facing the neighboring property, um, that's something that could be done. That would shield the sound, the light, everything. And it would just be a solid
wall. >> I don't think this is the time to redesign it. um during executive session like this, if you wanted to delay it and rep and come in with an alternative scheme,
that's one thing that that's up to uh my client and uh I'm looking to see if he has reached out to me. Do you want to entertain that, Rich? >> Yeah, I'd be willing to do that. Um, and I just I also have to state for the
record, if I'm not mistaken, 36 of these neighbors were noticed. Um, of all the neighbors that I've spoken to, four to six of them. Um, and the ones immediately to the other side of me. So, if you're looking at the house to the left, um, he is a a doctor and she's a
lawyer. And, um, they are approving the project. They are in favor of it. So the only two objectors are present today and I am listening to them wholeheartedly and am willing to
redesign again at my cost to make this acceptable to these two um concerned neighbors and I I I want to be a good neighbor. So I'm willing to do that. I think before you send it back for a redesign, we ought to have a better feel
for whether the FAR is the question. And if people aren't going to agree with the FAR, it isn't going to make any difference what you how you redesign it. >> Let me just ask you, >> if if the walls were removed, the
fireplace wall stayed and the sidewalls are removed, would that be a porch, Mr. Bridger? Yeah, I mean it >> it's a porch whether I mean I don't know if it makes sense to have the neighbors
and the applicant discuss this. I mean that that's something I hope would happen before this is the third or fourth time we're looking at this. Um, >> there was a there was a lengthy colloquy on October 22nd about the fact that it's
the screens that make this a feature that's subject to F. So, you know, stop talking porch, not porch. Derek said it's it's subject to the F
ordinance. We accept that it's subject to the F ordinance. We're not contesting that. >> Just a question. >> If I if I may, I think that this >> glass were added. Um I think this question came up at a
prior hearing. Um might that not lessen any impacts on the neighbors? They're concerned about the TV. So, I just wonder, >> I'll let my client speak to that, but from my perspective, that makes it a
room. I mean, first of all, it defeats the purpose. It's no longer an open air porch that you can enjoy. It's not a screened in porch. If you put glass in it, it's a room. >> Well, I I what makes it a room, I guess, is whatever our ordinance definition
says. But I'm talking about in terms of this application. So I'm I'm just throwing the question out that but I think they wanted it to be an outdoor space not a glass in space
whether we whether it's you know by ordinance considered a room or not is separate. I mean that I don't think that's what I don't think that was the goal was not to glass it in or put walls up either.
>> That's correct. >> Okay, board members, what's your pleasure at this point? Neil, should we consider an adjournment and allow me to do a redesign? >> It's not up to us. It's up to the board.
I mean, we can request an adjournment. >> I don't have a way of talking to you, so I'm sorry, >> but Mr. But we can request an adjournment, but Mr. Shriber said if the F issue doesn't go away, there's no reason, no point. The suggestion being that the board's prepared to deny it
based on F concerns. >> Well, for for me, I could support the F if if there was something uh in the redesign that um that that could
address some of the uh concerns about um the intrusiveness from the neighbors. We don't control that process. We don't control that process. We're willing, my client indicated, we're willing to an adjournment if the board is prepared to
grant one. >> What's the board's pleasure? Well, if you're requesting one, >> unless other board members don't want to do that, I see no reason not to allow them to redesign.
>> We are requesting one. >> Okay. board members, do you am I airing on the side of allowing them to continue this application? If we were to vote it down tonight,
does that mean they could not come back to us with a redesign? >> Exactly. >> That's right. >> And there's there's no way of taking a straw poll to see how we feel. Well, >> we don't have a
motion to take a straw poll against. I mean, there are a lot of things up in the air. >> Well, the other the other thing we could do, quite frankly, is we could withdraw the application. I I don't have to. The the the the downside to that is it's no
longer in the agenda. We start over again. new fees and and and all the like an adjournment is a more efficient means of doing things. >> Yes, Michael. Um,
I probably lean towards hoping it gets voted on tonight, but if they want to withdraw it, I would
feel better that way because they would then have to notice the neighbors and they were noticed a whole long time ago. and has never had to be noticed again.
And I recognize the point how few neighbors are here, but that could be a function of the fact they haven't been they were noticed what September. >> Yes. >> You know, and it it's I see it as being
a strain on them. Um so >> a strain on whom? on on on neighbors to keep up with it. So if you want to withdraw it, then >> the only two neighbors the only two neighbors that have ever shown up were
the two neighbors that testified tonight. >> That is not true in the first neighbor behind showed up. >> Yeah. >> All right, let's let's wait. >> No, he wasn't around. I I took notes on that. There was more than two neighbors
that spoke. So that that is not correct. >> Look um >> Karen >> in order to move this application along the applicant is asking you for an
adjournment uh because they want to consider a redesign. So is the board is the consensus of the board that that's acceptable to you? Can
we ask that this be renoticed? >> Well, you can't make it a condition because I mean the the MLU once it's been noticed once we have announced, you know, we're carrying it to that's why we always announce a certain date. >> Sure.
>> I don't think you can make the applicant do that. >> Okay. >> When ask them to do it. Well, you can, but um they can't be required to do that. Okay. Would you renotice?
>> I'd have to talk to my client. I mean, my client has talked to other neighbors. Um, it's not as if they've been in a vacuum. Uh, my inclination is we would notice
that being done ever. Can you hear me? By the way, my iPads >> We can hear you. We can hear you. >> Um, >> I just That seems extraordinary to me. We can >> Well, you don't have to do it.
>> No. Well, no. He wants to make it a condition of uh >> No, no, no. I'm not I'm asking I'm asking you voluntarily. Would you do it? I'm not requiring it to be done. I'm just asking if if we suggested that you do it, would you be willing to do it?
I would advise my client against it. The law does not provide for it. >> Okay, >> that's fine. >> Can I ask something? >> No, this is I'm sorry. That's not the the forum for this right now.
>> Well, listen, if you're so concerned about the neighbors, why don't you let her ask her question? >> Okay. >> Well, Mr. The peepsack has apparently talked to many neighbors except to us
who are his closest neighbors. I appreciate he wants to redesign, but before they start redesigning, it might be a good idea to talk to us and see what we could live with. Say thank you.
>> It's an excellent suggestion. I would be very happy to do that person. Yes. Is the is the consensus of the board that um you're willing to carry this to uh
uh date certain another agenda to allow the applicant to review a redesign with their next door neighbors and to come back to you with um a revised
plan. Do any board members have an objection to allowing them to continue continue the application to carry it? >> We can take a roll call vote. I thought it'd be easier just to to do this by consensus, but if you want, we can do
>> No, it's fine. I just want to know if anybody objected, that's all. I thought that would be the same. Yes, Donna. >> I don't have an objection. And I I just want to understand that this is still an F case. Whether there's a redesign or not, this is still an F.
>> Right. Right. >> Okay. I I just want to make that clear to the applicant. >> We understand it. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. Karen, do you want us to uh
verbally vote on this? Well, why don't we say uh do do all in favor to carrying the application? I don't know what the next date will be. Derek, do we know? >> It's going to have to be in June. I mean, April is booked. May is going to
have to be rescheduled. I believe Claudia is going to be out of the office. Um, so it would have to be June or July. And we have a lot of other cases that have just continued to get backed up because we have cases that the board has to, you know, that keep getting kicked down the road. So,
>> um, from the from for the applicant, uh, does is there a an issue whether it's June or July? >> No. >> All right. So, >> I mean I mean I'll be away portion of
June. So, I pref >> All right. So if it were carried to July that would be is that July 22nd? >> That is July 22nd. >> Now
I I will make one comment. Um I don't know the applicant is not required to renotice. In past situations some applicants have indicated they would be willing to send out notice by first class mail not
certified mail um which um adds another level of uh requirement. So, I don't know that the applicant wants to consider doing that, but as as we've discussed, they're they're not obligated
to do that. So, um so yeah, >> I need an extension. >> Okay. So, if this is carried to July 22nd,
Mr. you asking and do we have your consent to an extension of time? Yes. >> That would have to go through July 22nd. >> Yes. >> Okay. So now board members, um
why don't we just say all in favor of carrying this application to July 22nd, 2026 to allow the applicant the opportunity to confirm with their neighbors uh regarding a redesign of this project.
Do we have we can do this by voice? Okay, we got one, two, three, four, five, six. We have six in favor. Any opposed? All right. Well, then I'll take that
then that we've got the consensus to carry it. So, for those who were watching tonight, it will be carried to July 22nd, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. It will be on the board's agenda with the information for um
logging in to the meeting so that you can participate remotely. >> Okay, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Just one comment. Um, and it's more to any neighbors that are still online.
You can advise your neighbors um, and let them know. >> That's true. >> Since they're uh, not going to get even a uh, uncertified notice. So
pass the word and people can speak their mind. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Good comment. >> Yeah. Well, >> okay. >> Right. >> Ready to move on to
>> five break. Steve, >> I'm sorry. Steve, >> five minute break. >> Five minute break. All right. This this application is uh come to a close. We'll take uh it is uh 9:44.
Um we'll say 9:50 we will come back in session. Thank you. Hi, Ryan. Do you want me to move anybody over? >> Yeah, indeed. If we could do um uh I don't know if actually she needed to,
but Carmen Wolf is with us. Uh Lee, who's raised his hand, is our traffic. Uh Richie, our architect, and uh Steve uh is our planner. that reporter in. >> Yes.
>> Thanks. >> Okay, it's 9:50. Uh, are we all back? Okay. Okay. We'll go on now to our second application.
10 Hbert Place, uh, case number Z25-667, uh, block 25.02, lot 77 in the R4B zone. Um, Mr. Bridger, Miss Griven, does someone want to say
something about this application before we start? Um, yeah, no new information's been submitted except the presentation that the uh applicant is going to put on tonight. So, I haven't seen any plans other than that. Um, so we let him
>> Okay. And again, Karen, we this didn't require renoticing. >> That's correct. It was carried and we announced this date uh at our at whenever it was carried, we announced it publicly. So,
>> okay. So, who's going from the applicant standpoint? Who's And I see a hand go up. Uh, Mr. Kennedy. Okay. Please. >> Good evening, Mr. >> Good, Mr. Chairman. Um, uh, Claudia, with apologies. I left off one person, the applicant. You see, Tanu uh, at the
end, the bottom of the list, you can bring uh, her actually both of the applicants over under that one name. Uh, they may have a thing or two to say as well. Um, uh, good evening um, members of the board. Uh, Mr. Chairman. Um my name is Ryan Kennedy from Stevens and Lee here for uh the applicants. If you
recall, we did get through uh our presentation in um gosh, it seems long ago, but in in at the January meeting, um there were two core things that the board was um interested in seeing more from. Uh one, there were some excellent
suggestions about the layout of of the parking area. There were some thoughts that there was more room um maybe a kturn area could be put together to better allow a car to turn around before getting onto Hbert
Place which is a private road. Um and we brought on a traffic engineer uh our architect redesigned that area and um as often happens when things are discussed before this board it was an excellent idea and we were able to redesign it and we'll show you with our traffic expert um how a car could turn around with the
modifications that we've made. We also went through and there was some thought about well you know redesign the the whole thing frankly you know what would it look like to build a similar house elsewhere and there's no compliant place on this lot. It is an undersized lot essentially landlocked but for the um uh
private road. Um but there are places where it could be technically more compliant and we we looked at that and and um we think you'll agree but we'll talk through that it's it's just not a better design. It it results in no usable open space. Um results in a
parking arrangement that probably really won't work. It certainly won't be the upgrade um access-wise from the current situation. But we looked at it um and and um ultimately want to talk you through that why we think that the original design which uses the
foundation of the existing home clustering it on one side where it is now um filling in where there is a current covered porch um with an addition that again does not add any units does not add any bedrooms but does modestly increase the home to make it uh
more usable. keeping parking generally in the same area where it is today and has worked for uh some time um with the current home, but actually reconfiguring it based on the board suggestion. So, it should be more maneuverable. Um we uh
Miss Casey, I'll apologize. Certainly, one of our uh witnesses was not sworn in. Um our architect and I believe while we didn't actually get to our planner, they probably were sworn in last time. Um uh our traffic expert, Mr. Klein, certainly was not he was not part of the
project at that point. Um uh but if would make sense before we start the presentation um to swear them in or we could interrupt when it's when it's lee's turn for traffic and >> No, no, that's fine. But so we have Mr. Leiden, Mr. Klene,
and your client, Tanu Baki. Is that right? All right. So, if you'd all unmute yourselves and uh do you swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um we also, as Mr. Bridger noted um and I guess I'll say collaboration again the more time people look at things that are on a um uh challenging uh interesting quirky lot you know this is a site where there
are numerous existing um uh pre-existing non-conforming situations. Um there is technically no front yard for this lot because it doesn't front on an actual street. It runs on a private uh lane. Um, but our architect and and uh Mr.
Bridger and u u and and Taylor looked at it and there is and we'll make sure we note this u their updated memo resulted in I think one fewer variance even though the project didn't uh change particularly much uh but some reworking of some of those variants. We'll just
make sure that we're clear on what they are and much appreciated. Again, the more eyes on this uh the the the better accurate I suppose uh the mostly the the current situation is able to be described uh that we are u changing uh
as we expand the the property. Um so we did uh so we had one exhibit last time we have a totally new exhibit. So perhaps if we if it's all right uh we can we can mark this what we submitted um for this hearing as as our second uh 8 A2 perhaps uh and we'll keep both.
They're not um they don't run consecutively. Um, and I'll start with >> Do you know how many slides it will be, Mr. Kennedy? >> Uh, there are 19, but looking at the hour, I know I'll assure you that many of them are uh uh
quick ones. Um, I'll say that. Um, I do I'm looking Apologies. We have our Hollywood Square situation and I'm uh looking for our architect who was in the room when we moved over, but I uh >> do not see Rishi at the
>> Se >> if she dropped off. She Oh, she is. She's back on the attendee list of the last one. Claudia on the bottom. Um, if we could try to move her over again. Um, ah, many thanks.
So, while she comes back online with her camera, if it's all right, I'll share what we will talk about as being our second um, exhibit. Ah, >> we have you. >> Yes, I'm here.
>> I know you were sworn in previously, so you remain under oath. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And and and apologies to you for for um the the my delay in getting you asked to be moved over, but I'm glad we have you here now. Um uh so
we we've got a couple of uh slides here we'll we'll we'll talk through and we'll interrupt the initial presentation just board so you so you understand where we're going with this. We'll we'll have our architect take us through um uh some of the changes that the board suggests that we've implemented. We'll then uh
kind of pause with our trackment expert to kind of prove out and go through the testimony to show um why we think that works and you know how it works better from an access perspective. uh go back to our architect and talk about the kind of alternative design that we explored that again we we don't think um is is
better but we wanted to to make sure we explored it and maybe talk through it and then we'll close with our our planning testimony um this evening hopefully I'll be able to actually scroll through the exhibits Oops. Um so if you could um on this uh second slide
just remind the board where this property is. Basically, we have it highlighted in yellow on the left and the uh zoning map there on the right. >> Right. That's correct. Uh it just shows where the location of the site is. Um it's marked as R4-B zone. So, this is
just to give an a brief idea about where the location is. If you can go to the next slide. Um they >> So, uh >> yeah. >> Well, I was going to say um this essentially we believe has been superseded by Mr. Bridger's uh memo uh
from Friday. We did our exhibits just before that. Um uh Richie though if you want to just briefly go through you know some of the the changes here. I know we have like variant C was initially listed as been eliminated. So our list goes A
through L whereas the the new zoning memo goes A through K. But if you want to just briefly walk the board through the the changes. >> Yeah. So mainly the variances that we are asking are the side setback which is basically on the north and the south
side and the west side uh because the east side faces the uh the driveway and the parking spot. Uh the second main variance is the height to the setback ratio because this is a pre-existing condition where the lot itself is um
it's a odd shaped lot. So we have the height to setback uh ratio variance that gets kicked in for the north, south and the west side elevation. The last item on the list is the distance between uh the neighbor and the this building which
is the 10 ft requirement and we have 9.4 ft. So again goes back to the condition that we are keeping um the basement of the house and this is a pre-existing condition and what we are doing here is basically doing an addition towards the
east side of the house and rebuilding the first and the second floor. Moving on to uh the next slide. I think you've highlighted in in the bulk chart again those basic categories of variances that we >> talked about last time but again as modified by the updated zoning memo uh
removing one of the variances that just ultimately wasn't uh wasn't necessary. >> Correct. Um this just shows the diagram about the height and the setback ratio. We just wanted to have a slide uh in there just in case we need to go back and see.
>> Yeah. And and just to remind the board looking at box A the south elevation really the the left or western wall there um ult essentially is the current condition. However, if the board remembers you can take them through the
the updated roof design and why we pursued that and and perhaps why that makes the numbers change slightly from the existing condition. they're losing just to what maybe you could explain why we updated the the roof design uh from the existing condition from that. Uh
>> so we had the um regular um gable roof and uh this type of design is the shed roof design where basically why we did it is um two reasons. One was the storm water management. This is a better way of addressing um all the rain that falls
on the roof. it just stays away from the neighbor which is on the on the west side of the property. So um this roof condition, the roof design and the the way the the architecture of the building came up with was a better approach in addressing the um the height to the um
setback ratio and also uh answering the storm water management. >> So no no changes there but that's just a refresher from yes from last time. >> Yeah, no particular changes there. Now, there are a small amount of changes, but ultimately still a
compliant application as far as coverage goes. You know, we'll talk about on the next slide the the changes that we made based on the board's comments about maneuverability uh you know, at the in the parking area, but but ultimately uh uh still remain uh compliant um from a
coverage perspective. >> Yes. And one thing which I want to point out is I did do a chart specifically for the existing imperous coverage and um what we have as the proposed is under the allowable. So we are not exceeding
that number and I wanted to see the difference between the existing and the proposed which is basically uh just a 14% ratio increase in terms of the extra imperous area that is happening on with the proposed design >> and that number that actual from a
square footage perspective is le is 384 square feet so less than the 400 in Princeton that would trigger even trigger storm water mitigation. Is that right? >> Right. That's correct. So, moving to slide seven. This is an updated um I hesitated to call it site plan, but you know, sketch of of the
property. I want to talk about, you know, one of the one of the core uh comments we got uh in January was, you know, look, there there is some room in the back of uh in the we'll call it the the backyard, although of course, unfortunately, this lot is unique. does not have a rear or front or side yards, but the what we'll call the the back the
place uh the green area I suppose um open space um to the east of the property on the right side of the screen. Um but there's some comments where if we rec maybe reconfigured the porch uh perhaps made a little bit more
room for maneuverability um it might be a lot easier to get in and out uh of the site. Um so maybe just talk the the board through a little bit about the changes and I I I might be able to zoom in a little bit on that. Um those are famous last words of >> so um I'll have uh Lee go over the
circulation diagram but uh very briefly I'll talk about the uh relocation of the steps basically the new steps on the east side. We moved them. We kind of reduced them in width and um we now have a shorter footprint for the deck uh or
the steps uh leading to the backyard. And um that gives us most more space for the car to turn around. We do have the uh uh metal bolards just as an extra extra safety measure for the car that is
backing uh and coming out of the site. Um, so yeah, those were the two main things. We um we don't have a shed at the back, so we have more space for the client to enjoy the back, the sideyard or the east facing part of the site. Um,
and uh we tried to stay um within like give more area for the grass and more green space and um still give more justice to how a car is going to come in and come out of the site. And just as as a reminder, um this
hatched area is the new addition, but this area in front represents the existing porch. So ultimately the parking area um is more or less unchanged. The entrance uh is similar to the existing condition. Um and uh again
based on the the board's comments what where the steps had been which was closer to the entrance had been moved and Richie you kind of found some extra area for we'll see in a minute um a kturn turn area I suppose so that a car can back in and out and then instead of
possibly having to back all the way out to Humber Street um down Humber Place which is might be what happens now um that someone would be able to turn around on the property and then actually drive forward all the way back uh down the street. >> One thing I would like to just uh add
and correct uh the front porch we did add slightly to it. It's about a 2'9 in addition to the existing front porch in order for the house to basically the entrance door is what made the addition to that slight addition to that porch in
the front. So that was the only thing I want to add. But yeah, other than that, I think I I explained we are adding 377 square ft on the first floor, then doing a second floor addition on top. >> Now, um if it's all right, u Mr.
Chairman, we will come back to the architect, but if if it's okay, I'd like to introduce our our traffic expert at this moment. Um I know there there may be questions from the for the architect, happy to answer them, but um she will be back momentarily and and perhaps some of the things that board members might be thinking could be answered then as well.
But I'll leave it to your discretion. >> Well, that's fine. >> Perhaps in the interest of time then and I I will um uh Lee, I'm going to pull my screen down a little bit so that the um the board can see you more fully and if you could just introduce yourself and go through your and again looking at the
time quickly. Um I know you've tested been in many places before. Go through your credentials. >> Yes. Hi, my name is Lee. Middle initial D is in Daniel Klene Kle I N. I'm the principal of Klein Traffic Consulting in West Orange, New Jersey. I'm an uh
licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. My license is current in good standing. I'm also a nationally certified professional operations engineer and that national certification is also in good standing. Uh I've been accepted as an expert in traffic engineering at well over 150
planning and zoning boards throughout New Jersey. >> Mr. Klein, we will accept you as an expert in your field. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm going to put the screen back on and we're going to be on slide eight, which um, just so Lee is not surprised, is going to be a
traffic diagram that he put together. Um, so give me one second to do that. Um, here we go. And, and uh, just if you want to take the board through what you did here, what what's represented here, and um, let me know. I'm I'm uh, I can zoom in a little bit if it would be
helpful or or leave it as is. >> Zoom in a tiny bit. But what what I did was I took the I took the site plan uh that shows Humber Place, the private drive, um the easement area, and then I developed a turning template where the
vehicle would come in head first from Humber Street, head towards the property, make a left turn into the site, pull to the right, and par basically parallel to Humber Place, park their vehicle. Uh we had a couple of iterations of this but this is the the
the way we ended up. So if you want to go to the next slide. So now for that vehicle to come out head first as Ryan had said earlier that vehicle has to make a couple of little K turns here uh and then they're able to face um I guess face south to make the
right turn to go out to go out to uh Hbert Street. So we did that using uh the turning templates of auto turn that comes from AutoCAD. Um it was done under my supervision. Again we were provided with a PDF of the site plan the way you
see it without actually without the parking area. I did these maneuvers and then Ruchi designed the parking area around my maneuvers. So maybe just as a a follow-up then, so you know, based on um the improvements
that were uh in design to the site and and your analysis, um I don't if you want to speak to whether this is an improvement over the the prior design we showed the board, but will this um allow a a vehicle to um I'll say head first in and head first out um uh to the to the
parking area? >> That's correct. The first exhibit shows the vehicle coming in head first, basically parallel parking or facing east. And then in this slide, when that vehicle is ready to leave, they do a little series of K turns and they're able to face head first south, make the
right turn out of the driveway, head down to Humber Street head first. >> And I imagine some of the team has has shared with you how things work now, but perhaps it's an improvement from the current condition that exists on the site that that may not allow that. Yeah.
Yeah. Correct. To come in head at first and to come out head first is obviously the best way to go and that's what we're providing here. >> Many thanks. Um um Mr. Chairman, I don't want to oversimplify, but um happy to have the our our traffic expert
available for any questions before we go back to the um architectural and and other site testimony. But we wanted to be extra sure that um you know, one we we listened to the board's comments about changing the site back there and and two really showing that it actually would work. Um frankly,
>> members, while we have this while we have this diagram on the screen, do you have any questions about the uh the maneuverability of a car to pull in, turn around, and pull out this front? >> Just just one quick question. Uh when
you said a a series of uh K turn, is it like maybe two back and forths or many many back and forths? >> No, it looks if you you can see uh the outline of the vehicle, it starts off. >> It pulls back >> forward one more time and then back.
Yes, >> you want to talk. So it goes backwards once, forward once, backwards again, and then it comes out. >> Okay. >> Apologies. I just got the a >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> What was that? Brian, >> apologies. It's too late. I was going to
make a terrible joke and I I'm I'm regretting it already. So, apologies for >> as you should. Okay. Um, okay. Board members, any other questions of the traffic engineer? >> One other question, just a question. Is
there any traffic on Humber Humble Hbert Place? there any traffic on Humber Place? Uh I believe the the neighbor to the west uh parks their vehicle on Humber Place, but as far as through traffic, no, there's
no through traffic. >> There's no through traffic. So, >> correct. Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I'll I'll perhaps just highlight this is going back a couple of slides. uh directly to the west uh is a a duplex um who would use it but would not be
traveling necessarily um east of our site and then to the south um the property that it's actually on um would in the future be used. There's currently not um um structures built on that yet, but there there would be in the future. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> How how many cars do you anticipate residing here? Steve, I believe that the um or excuse not Steve, that's our planner. That's that's next. U Lee, the requirement is is one and we we've shown and have one spot um on on the the site. I don't want
to get too much into it. there are some potential um you know there is room on the um easement area for parking and uh we prefer not to rely on it um necessarily because it but but ultimately um we show the one on the on the site and that's what's required
under the the ordinance. um each there's a few properties that uh including ours that that under the access easement have a right to park kind of a a spot on the parallel u but we wanted to be absolutely clear that we could comply without using that >> and am I right this this is to be a
three-bedroom threebath house my notes correct >> um I'll let the architect confirm when she comes back on certainly three bedrooms before and after we are adding uh bathrooms I believe it is three. I think you are correct.
>> Yes. >> Thank you so much. Um Rich, I'll bring you bring you back. Um uh we'll kind of first summarize again remind the board a little bit about the design um here but ultimately uh the kind of buckets of um variances but if you go a little bit
into the the reasoning and and some of the positives that our planner will touch on later um about the using the current location and and expanding into the porch area rather than as we'll show a little bit later uh
the um an alternate design you more in the center of the lot. >> Sure. I I just want to address yes that's three bedroomedroom three bathrooms um that was asked earlier and going back to this slide um this is just to give an idea what variances are
requested. So we have site setback variance the height u the building height to setback ratio and the distance between the building and the adjoining building. Um one of the reasons why we did it is um the sustainability um um
aspect of it where we are keeping the existing uh foundation of the existing house. So that itself would reduce the carbon footprint that would reduce the construction waste in in case there was a scenario where we completely demolish the building and u even the excavation
that happens u due to the new construction also causes a lot of site disturbance and um and excavation cost for the for the client also. Um so those were the the main reasons. One of the important reason is the sustainability
part of it and also the economic aspect of it. The other positive part is that the the client gets to enjoy the sideyard. Uh we providing one car space in the side for the car to enter and exit out, but it still gives them
adequate sideyard space uh in case they want to do a barbecue at the back or sit and relax and enjoy the sideyard. Um one of the other conditions is the design of the um of the building which uh we are making it better. The elevation itself
is improving the um the um the look and feel of the house. It it is more light. It it gives more light to the uh to the people living inside the house. It gives more space to them. The ceiling heights have improved from what was existing.
We're now giving 9 ft ceiling heights to them. and um and on top of it it's better storm water management um in terms of addressing the u the rainwater for the house. So yeah, those were the couple of important things I wanted to
highlight. >> And I guess to the the bottom right corner on the positives, even if we uh were uh not having the the benefit of reusing the current location or or the you know the the the some of the benefits from uh you know not
reconstructing um a foundation or a basement. But ultimately, as we'll show later, um this is the the the layout that we'll see is the most accessible for cars. The other ones are something else would be quite challenging just the way the easement is set up. Um and and
further using piggybacking off of or expanding from the existing uh home location does allow for we'll call it a backyard um and some usable open space rather than the open space being kind of surrounded you know like a the egg white of a yolk where there's just a sliver
kind of around or or covered with with parking. >> Yep. So again those those three buckets rishi I guess the yep the the economics sure but uh the sustainability and more importantly the access and and creating an outdoor usable outdoor space.
>> Yep. Yeah. These are just few slides showing the existing footprint the uh proposed which is highlighted in yellow. Um and um that's the um if you can go further um Ryan that's the first floor uh where the highlighted is the proposed
area. Again three bedroomedroom three bathrooms um upstairs we have goodsiz bedrooms and um and a staircase 9 ft ceiling height on both the levels and then we have the roof the before and
the after. Um this is how it look. It it is existing on the left and then the right shows the proposed um elevation of the house. Um the side steps that we added u towards the east side have a roof canopy just so that somebody who's
coming out of the house has a some kind of a a roof um while they're coming out. If you want to go to the next >> shows that well that shows again instead of the front gable the the pitch roof to to bring water away from the alley in the >> That's right.
That's from the east side of the elevation the before and the after. And then this is the side facing the neighbor. Uh one thing I want to point out is that we have minimum uh openings or if you can call it fenestrations
um facing towards the neighbor. So it's only 5% of the facade. Uh that way the um there's a level of privacy maintained between the neighbor neighboring building and this building >> and that's actually a reduction from the
current windows which are a little challenging neighbor-wise. >> Yes. And uh the walls will be fire rated. Um the it's basically the um the vinyl siding, but the exterior walls are going to be 1 hour fire rated. >> And that's another improvement from the
current condition. >> That's that's right. This is basically uh making it um more better in terms of the code and in terms of the fire uh safety regulations. >> This is >> Go ahead, Ryan. Sorry.
>> Okay. All right. So, so one of the other things the board asked us to to look at is like, well, you know, that you know, there was some skepticism, you know, obviously that the whole reason for um using the existing structure isn't just, you know, the saving the cost of a of a
basement. Well, that, you know, that's that's part of it. Sure. And there's the the um uh environmental aspect of not rebuilding something that's good, but that's already there um and usable. But ultimately, well, is there a more compliant location? And we looked at,
well, what would it what would it what would happen if we tried to build a similar modestiz house uh um in the building footprint? Um and we tried and you you can come close. Um it still
needs quite a few variances, but the um you could you could talk us through it, but the the thing that because of the other constraints on the site, um namely the easement locations and the need for parking, we we end up with a with a layout that unfortunately seem is quite
a lot of pavement. Um not a lot of usable access for a car to get in and out and unfortunately no usable open space. we're kind of left with these slivers of sideyards rather than kind of clustering a usable open space uh in the
back with the home clustered kind of where its current location. So, you want to just kind of take us through what we explored here and obviously this is not a full design. This is just the idea of where a home is. There's other challenges I'm sure in you actually designing a trapezoidal home. Uh but
assuming you could uh maybe talk talk the board through it. Yeah. So we uh last time we u listened to all the concerns the board had and uh we tried to see what this approach would lead us to. So the the red box that you see is
basically the um the minimum setbacks and we tried to stay within that but we also had to um meet the square footage. So within that number we still trigger variances. We have the height to setback ratio variance which is still the same
what we had at the uh first place. The second is the distance between the the two buildings. That's also um the uh scenario. The third one was the parking. The parking we showed it on the side which is towards the east side, right?
And um as you can see it's too close to the lot line. Typically it should be 4 ft off the the property line. And this one with this approach we are getting about around 2 ft um distance from the um asphel paving to the lot line. So
this uh this approach did not reduce u too many variances. We still have many of them um with this approach and um as you can see at the corner of the property line there is a utility pole.
Um so we also have to consider that in terms of um the location of the parking and everything else and u on top of it I mean um it's basically parking in the front is not the driveway completely in front of the house and parking uh very
close to the house and to the neighbor is not a very um pleasing approach I would say. And and just to to note for the board, I'll maybe I'll I'll try to zoom in a little bit here, but this essentially we
we to make this even attempt to work, we're really kind of paving this whole front area. Now, admittedly, it's not a front yard because this unique lot does not have a front yard, but it's what you'd kind of expect the front yard to be. and and here unfortunately whether instead of having kind of a more of a neighborhood friendly approach to it,
you've got a lot of pavement that kind of creates an entire paved area between Humber Place and the parking area and and re do I have it right that this existing area which is you know a feature of the e of the access area and the easement and not our property is a
sidewalk. So, actually, you'd have to kind of hop over this sidewalk sort of to get to the parking area and then try to maneuver this kind of S maneuver around to avoid some of it through the front yard. Is that more or less what someone would have to do?
>> Yeah, that's the existing concrete walkway uh which is which is there and we're not touching it. So obviously they'll have to it would be hard in term in terms of maneuvering the car and u the location itself is is not a good
location for overall the design the look and feel of the house and for even for the neighbor >> to kind of let me zoom back out here. Um the and we call this design option but it's you know it's our attempt to kind of show what where else a home could be.
Um but you want to just take us through what you know we still still need quite a few variances and but what the you know I guess maybe summarizing on what the what the issues with with this with trying to be not not compliant but a more compliant location.
>> Yeah. So variances are still there. Uh I listed them and u the parking um and the asphal paving it dominates the front and the east the west side of the lot u creating a very undesirable location condition and uh and moreover the
sideyard that we are left with uh it it does not give any space for the homeowner to enjoy that uh yard space. Uh because as you can see that layout kind of the the paving and the asphalt um the asphel driveway dominates the
site. Uh which should not be the case in ter in in in a single family home. The home should should look like a home and driveway should not be dominating the the property. >> Thank you. Um uh with that before we get to our planning testimony certainly um
>> welcome any questions for Kennedy. Can I just interrupt you for a second? I'm very sorry. >> Yes. >> Um Karen Derek um it is 10:26. We have one other application this evening.
>> Um 105 Mountain Avenue. Um we're obviously not going to start it before 10:30 at this point. And um unfortunately I have to because of a personal reason I can't go beyond
11 this evening. Um so do we want to uh instruct anyone in the audience or the applicant that maybe we'll have to carry the Mountain Avenue project to the next hearing? >> Yes, sir. April uh 202.
I mean, uh, Claudia, can can you bring over the, uh, applicant for the Mountain Ain application so we can just explain this and we can get her, make sure she's aware.
There she is. >> Okay. Karen, do you want me to explain it or do you want to explain it? >> Sure. Um, Miss Go, uh, because uh, the board isn't going to be able to
go past 11:00 tonight. We're not going to reach your application. We'd like to carry it to April 22nd. uh you would not have to renotice. Um and
that's pretty much the option we have for tonight. So we just want to make sure you're we have your consent to do that. >> Yes, I totally understand. But April 22nd would not work for me. I'll be travel internationally. Would that be another date available for us?
>> Uh yes, there's the May meeting. >> The May meeting is uh problematic. I don't know if we want to go late, but we do have a vice chair. >> That's >> we can't go. I mean, this is you're talking >> variance.
>> It's a lot of variances. I mean, it would be the June meeting. >> Okay. I just >> would be the 20 >> June 24th. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is that acceptable? Um, can you
give me a second? I just need to check my calendar. >> Sure. >> June 20. June 24th. That's a Wednesday. >> Yep. >> Okay, >> Karen. And we need an extension, too. >> Okay.
>> Thanks, Claudia. Yes, I think I think that will work, but I will have to double check with my engineer and architect to confirm with their availability to be able to uh be
present at the meeting as well. >> All right, let's do this. So, >> I think they're actually both maybe um waiting and Kathy. Yes, let's and Steve Dra.
>> Okay. Hold on. So, let's see. That's Yes, I see. And is that Kathy Mueller or is that yours? Your your is she your engineer? >> Yes. >> All right. Clotty, can you bring them over just so they can confirm their availability?
>> And Steve Droi, our architect. And it should be on the call as well. There's a John De Roachi that Oh, >> well, he's here. He's here. >> Yeah, I'm here.
>> Okay. So, Miss Mueller, Mr. Droce, uh, are you also available on uh, June? Just make sure we've got the right date. June 24th. >> June 24th. I'm good. Uh,
>> you're muted, Ms. Mueller. I'm sorry. >> No, you're good. Miss Mueller, you're muted. Are you saying you're available or we can't hear you? >> Kathy, are you on mute? Uh, we cannot hear you.
Maybe you can text. >> Nodding. Okay. Okay, we've got it. >> Okay, good. Good. >> All right. Um, >> okay. Thank you very And then Miss Miss Go, we're going to need an extension of time because the board uh has only so
many days within which to consider an application. So we need you to give us more time and we would need you to give us an extension of time to hear your application. I'm going to say through June 30th just to be on the safe side.
So do we have your consent to that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Okay, then I think we can return to 10 Hbert. >> Do you want to make the announcement about the members of the public? >> Oh, yeah. I thought I had, but I'll say
it again. Uh for anybody in the public, the application is being carried to June 24, 2026, uh 7:30 p.m. will also be on the board's agenda for that meeting with information about how you can log in if you want to
participate remotely and the applicant will not be obligated to provide any additional noticing for that meeting. >> Thank you board. Uh, thank you Kathy and Steve for being here tonight. >> We're good. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Thank you for your help. >> Okay, let's go back to uh >> Ken Humber. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so at at this point, that's our our architectural testimony. So happy to have there any uh
questions about the the property, about the design, about the changed parking area or the what we explored with the alternative design. Happy to to answer them now. >> Well, yeah, I have. >> Yes, Michael. >> I'll try to try to make it quick on the
alternative um drawing you had. Um, could you quickly explain to me again the easement that would require all that concrete in front? >> Absolutely. Let me see if I can u bring
it back up. It should be easier than I'm finding it. Hold on. I will zoom in a bit. So, um, Arishi, stop me if I if I get any of this wrong, but I'll just in the interest of time, I'll just kind of describe it for you. This,
uh, dark dotted line represents the the property that we're talking about, >> right? Um the in front of that is is Hbert Place which is a private road uh and an access easement that goes uh east to west to the left east to uh Hbert
Street and then kind of stops here at the at at the end of our our driveway. Um >> that is a a legal easement that's been recorded with the deeds that is for our access and the neighbors access. Um, but we we don't have the ability to make
physical changes to it. So, there actually already is this uh and I'll see if I could zoom in more. There's a sidewalk here uh just in concrete walkway. Uh that is a feature of the of the easement already. We don't have the ability to change that and it is kind of between us and the uh you know the
proposed you know this possible parking arrangement and the access area. >> Okay. And do you I expected to see not a you know a fully compliant alternative.
Um so I was surprised to see the alternative set back so far. I actually expected to see it like 3.8 eight sort of up sort of naturally
and not having it set back so far and probably being not as wide. I was surprised to see you have it set back. What's that? Uh >> maybe just to understand maybe like a a something kind of in between something a little closer to the original design but
just slightly further away. >> Yes. set, >> you know, close to Hunter Place, you know, only like a 3.8 set back from Humber Place >> consistent with the duplex next door or the next door
>> and then you could have had >> so we we looked at that. Rich, maybe you can take us through. The problem is that to get onto the site, the the easement access >> um you know, you I think what you might be thinking as well, you would you would I don't know if you can see the little
hand cursor here, but you know, a car would like sweep around here and be able to park here perhaps if we moved the house further back, for example. Um our our ability to enter the site ends uh kind of where the current driveway is. uh the easement ends and doesn't go all
the way to the back of the property. So, we explored a couple different ways, but the the I don't know the magic of the current location is that it's clustered enough to the front that um we could still get to the back and park um if even moving it back a couple of feet um
cuts off that driveway area. Frankly, let me ask you the options. Are you saying that in order to get with this scheme, and I understand what Michael's saying, and I think he's right, with this scheme, you've got to go past, you come into the property, go
in, you make a left into the property, and a left again, and then a right. >> Yes. Or you hop this curb, essentially, hop the sidewalk. >> Can Can you come Can you just come down Hbert and turn left into the property? >> Yeah.
and then you don't have any paving in the front. Then Michael's exactly right, move the house forward. It would be a far better scheme than forcing the um again I think it's in my opinion it's a far better scheme than trying to to
modify that existing house. I think I think when I look at it, the cost of doing all those changes to that existing structure and adding on to it is going to far exceed what's going to cost to build a new house which could be based
on Michael's description far nicer. So re you want to comment on that again the to to I think what you're describing is would be coming down Humber Place making a you know avoiding uh the utility pole here and and there would be a parked car as well behind it
>> left across across the sidewalk though essentially. >> Well why why why can't you do that? That's typically >> everybody crosses a sidewalk if you got one. Why are we redesigning it for them? >> Well, we're just
>> Are there fewer? I thought it was essentially the same number of variances needed. >> I thought that's what I heard. >> There are >> Am I wrong? >> Well, I I >> there are there are fewer. I would love
to see more distance between what are now the two existing because it doesn't quite meet code now if it's done in the same place and also also I thought of more logical parking
>> but they like it the way it is that's what they brought to us that's how they want to do it >> well they >> okay thank thank you I understand your point >> but >> but I My my question still stands. >> Yeah, but Eve, they came to us with this
alternative. >> Well, that's cuz we asked for it, I believe. >> Okay. I mean, >> can I make a comment? >> Okay, >> Steve. >> Yes. >> Two things. Um,
when I redid the uh bulk chart, I left out the variance for the expanded porch that runs along Humber. That's a foot and a half it appears to be. So that's a variance. And then looking at the survey which appears to have been done for the previous owner.
Um as we note the setbacks at the like the northwest corner of the property one is 0.1 ft. That's one and one quarter feet in >> right >> the survey has no boundaries pin set.
So, how do you build a building an inch and a quarter back from a a setback without a survey that doesn't have any I mean that that was the point about looking at a redesign was you're.9 ft away from a property line and you're.1
foot and that's not I mean if you have the opportunity to address that I think you should what you're trying to do but I mean that's >> so you're saying >> how do you do that how do you do that with this survey the pins >> you really need an accurate survey Then
you need a new survey. Is that right? >> If I can add um that's the existing we keeping it the way it is. We are not removing or redoing the foundation for that existing part. So um what's stays
stays because that's an existing outline of the structure >> but you're rebuilding on top of it. >> Yes. So the >> we don't know if that existing is there or not because no pins are set. >> I'm not sure I follow. So the questioning that that
>> there's no boundary set on the survey. They signed a waiver or they say they purported to sign a waiver. A written waiver and direction not to set corner markers has been obtained from the ultimate user pursuant to PL 203. >> That was a whole discussion about moving
the building back a few feet from the property line. I don't remember us talking about this survey not being >> but it's still the same. >> It's the same issue. You're building an inch from the property line without a survey with
with pins. >> You would Eve you'd have pins at the corners so you could actually physically see the corners of the property. and then you can accurately determine where the distance of the home is from
that property line. But without pins, you can't see anything. >> Well, I'm just surprised that we're just now discussing this. I don't remember that coming up or be even being the reason for them to consider
repositioning it when we talked about this last time. So, I'm just surprised that we're now doing that. They can choose to keep this the way it is, but I think Derek's point is good. You know, how do you know how accurate
this thing is without having any markers to identify the property corners done either with corners or from other references? And I I don't know what to say other other than than that that the
the location of that corner is fixed now. Um and the proposal is to keep it as in its current location. Um I I I understand better now. I think what some of the board members were were looking for, which I think is to take this project and we we would say kind of
unnecessarily shift it, rebuild it several feet over. Um to that point though I just the part that we can address though is that because of the if that was the desire maybe we would have we would have cut
this off then there is um even without moving it over at all not a not three feet not a foot not an inch we had to revise uh the step location to to make it even work for from an access perspective. So, if we were to move it
several feet over to to create a little bit more of a um a buffer, I suppose from the existing condition and rebuild the house several feet that way to the west, we would run into that choke point um and and have difficulty getting a car
into the back of of the site and that would be a a negative change from the current situation. I think I think we're talking about two different things. But if this is the scheme you want to go with, leaving the left section of the existing building in
place and adding on to the right, then you know, we still need to make sure that that that back wall is actually actually accurate. Then you have the issue of you're building on the property line. How do
you physically do that >> from one? >> Understood. And we would certainly certainly make sure that we are not encroaching onto the neighboring uh property. Uh >> how do you how do you physically finish the neighbors side of that wall without
going onto his property or working on his property? >> Well, if we if we needed that, we would have to obtain access. It's a fairly common thing for tight sites in in Princeton. >> Okay. It's fine. We've addressed that in Yeah, we understood that. We we the if the board the board's approval of of the
design nor these variances um is not your invitation for us to trespass on another property. We just we understand if we couldn't if if the neighbor denied us access, we would not be building potentially. You know, if we there was no way to get on and finish the section from our side of the lot line and we
didn't have permission, we would >> it's fine. >> It would be a challenge. >> Let's just move on from there. So, we you know, we're not going to consider the alternate location. and we'll just work with this. Fine. >> Um, so we do have our our planner here. Um,
he was sworn in last time, but Steve, I don't believe we got your credentials uh uh out of the way. If you could very briefly considering the hour. I know you you represent many boards and have testified all over the state, but briefly introduce yourself and your credentials as a professional planner uh this evening.
>> Sure. Steve Linen here. I'm a professional planner as Mr. Kennedy just said I um Rut's graduate um many many years ago. I've been a licensed planner since the uh the mid to late 80s. Uh I used to work for a couple
municipalities. I was also a uh planning director for Morris County Community. I've been with Burgess now for 25 years. >> We'll accept you. We'll accept you as an expert. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thanks, Jim. >> You're welcome. Uh recognizing the time is very short,
uh I'd like to do this rather quick and if I go too quick, please stop me. Um just to get on the record, uh the property in question is block 25.02, lot 77, and it has access off of Humber Place. And that's important because we
need a variance for having access off of Humber Place because it's a private, not a public road. Couple of things are important about Humber Street. One, it's it's improved. It's got sidewalk on both sides. It's a short road. The dwelling
is only 111 ft or so from the intersection with uh Humber Street. It is also relatively level and flat. So, I don't think the issues that the municipal land use law raises in section
35 and 36 with uh issues uh about private streets really apply here, especially since there is a municipal fire hydrant at the intersection of Humber Place and Humber Street. So, I think concerns about providing emergency
services to a dwelling that's on this property uh don't really exist in this particular case. Um the property is small. It's only 2758 square ft and that as an existing property developed with a dwelling does create some hardships.
You've heard we seek to create a two-story addition. I believe it's only about 377 square ft to the uh per floor. We're also taking down an existing porch on the west side of the property. And that actually um
means that we're just not adding to the property, we're also removing some of it. Um access proposed access to the off streetet parking uh basically remains the same. You've heard Mr. Kennedy explain that there are some real world uh easement limitations and construction
limitations. Why we need to rely on that. Uh a as mentioned we're in the R4-B zone. Single family dwellings are permitted use in this zone. Which brings me to to my next point. Um, there are two structures on Humber Place right now
that rely on Humber Place for access. The subject's property, a single family home, and the property immediately to the um to the west of that, which is a duplex, which is obviously a more intense use than a single family house.
The other thing I'd like you to I'd like to point out about uh the ax that other two family dwelling. It's been noted that we have practically a dwelling on the north property line. That's not unusual on Hbert Place because the two
dwell the two family dwelling to the west of us has the same exact configuration. It comes right to the to the northern property line. We are close to the common property line between the subject property and the two family
dwelling to the west. But so are they they come to within.9 ft I believe or point they they there are very similar setbacks. So yes, we are seeking some setbacks, some variances
which are matching the existing dwelling, but they're also consistent with the other developed part property on uh on the street. And that also goes to the uh Humber Place setback. If you look at the survey done by Harris Surveying, which is a new survey, and by
by new I mean it's dated September 10th of last year, um it shows the footprint of that dwelling to the west. What it doesn't show is the uh overhang. And so if you add the overhang, they have even
a narrower setback to humble place. Um so what do we all what does all this mean? Uh unlike the earlier application you heard tonight, we do not need a D4 variance. Um we need a couple of bulk variances. Um as a lot is somewhat under sized for the zone. That's not
surprised. There's also no opportunity on this property to expand uh the lot size. The the the property to the to the west of us where the two two family dwelling is located is clearly developed. It has no room uh to provide act uh property to us. The property to
the north has a parking lot serving the multif family dwelling located uh on Humber uh street. So it has no property to provide. and to the west uh to the east of us, the properties fronting the
adjacent street are all developed. So there's no adjacent properties to be acquired. Um and I think the lot lines that this lot has are somewhat important. The western lot line, which I spent a lot of time talking about, is is just 36.9
ft in length. Um the the front line along Humber Place is less than 68 feet in length. With those kind of dimensions, uh variances are going to be necessary. Um and despite these zoning uh deficiencies, a dwelling with driveway
has existed on the property in question for a very long time. And speaking about that dwelling, I would suggest that dwelling is rather old. And some may say there are more there are more attractive properties in Princeton than the current dwelling. And I wouldn't disagree with
that. And I think one of the benefits of this application is we replace an older not attractive dwelling with with a new dwelling which is attractive. I give the architect uh kudos for coming up with a
good plan. So So if we need some bulk variances, we have two ways of doing that. Of course, we can either go uh C1, which is a physical features test, the narrowness of the lot, the shallowess of the lot, the shape. I've talked about those already, or we can go the public
benefits test, the C2, the more flexible uh variance approach. Um, in both cases, we have to do the negative criteria that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and it will not substantially, and that's a real key
word because it's in the statute, substantially impair the intents and purposes of the master plan and the zoning ordinance. And turning to the zoning ordinance, uh, the Princeton Planning Board uh, adopted their most recent master plan re-examination
uh, report in um, November of 2023. And there are two I don't want to go into great detail at uh 10:55. I never want to talk about a master plan, but there's uh two things I want to focus on. Under the foundation of the plan, it says one
of the foundations of the plan is to maximize the opportunity for every resident uh to thrive in Princeton. And that could be a good title for this application. We've got an older, not so attractive development uh dwelling. and
and what the applicant is seeking to do is to maximize the opportunities to thrive. The under the assumptions of the 223 the 2023 plan uh is the following language and it's listed as the first assumption which I believe is important.
Um first Princeton will welcome new growth. That's stated in your master plan as its first assumption. Well, if Princeton is to honor this stated assumption, I believe a good place for the for the
municipality to start is with this minor addition that doesn't m materially change the Humber Place neighborhood. In fact, it materially improves it. Um, so so that's the negative criteria. I don't think we substantially uh
uh impair the intents of the master plan or the zoning ordinance. And and because we're not really changing much other than improving the the functionality of the dwelling and the appearance of the dwelling, I don't think there's a substantial uh detriment to the public
good. We are adding a bit of a parking area to the uh to the east part of the lot. And if you look at the survey I mentioned earlier, it's almost all enclosed with with walls and with uh with fencing and
there's also a shed in the back corner. So what that does is that materialize materially minimizes any visual impact by adding a parking area. Um under the C2 public benefits test, I think the
board can approve this application for a number of reasons. One is further purposes of the MLUL and and there's several of those. Purpose A to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Uh the proposed use is permitted in the zone. Princeton wants
single family houses on this lot. The applicant furthers purpose E to promote appropriate population densities. There's a dwelling under existing condition. If this board sees fit to approve the application, there'll be a dwelling under proposed conditions. No change in density.
Proposed dwelling expansion promotes purpose G of the municipal land use law to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential. Municipality has zone this property for single family dwellings and one would be
both existing and proposed. Uh the application also furthers purpose uh I l of the MLUL to promote a desirable visual environment. The expanded and improved dwelling offers neighbors and municipality a significantly improved visual
environment. Enlarged dwelling looks substantially better than today's condition. Post construction dwelling will function at a much greater level. So I think we do provide uh numerous public benefits. I think there's no substantial detriment to the public
good. U proposed developed the property in question now is developed uh presently. If the application is approved, it will still be just one dwelling on the lot, just one that is more attractive and contemporary. Um to the west, uh a two family dwelling is
located north of the site is a parking lot. I don't believe board's approval of this application will adversely affect either one of them, especially since the two family dwelling to the west has very similar or identical setbacks to the
north, the east, and the south as as the proposed uh dwelling does. The dwelling expansion is towards east where the lot gains depth. So, we're maximizing the benefits of the lot. existing setbacks are either maintained or become slightly greater as lot
becomes deeper. Um we can accommodate the the bar the municipality can accommodate the proposed development while still meeting other zoning standards most notably F the impervious coverage only increasing by 96 square feet and by providing for the parking
required. Lastly, we also need a section 36 35 uh variance from the MLU. Uh section 35 states no permit for the erection of any building or structure shall be issued unless the lot butts a street giving
access to such a proposed building or structure and the street needs to be either a public street or approved by the county. Uh in our case, Humber Place has existed for an extended time but has never been accepted as a public street. Um, tax maps do identify Humber Place
with the classification of private. Private easements and alleys providing access to dwellings are not unusual in this part of Princeton. There are two which intersect from Jefferson Road and another private road intersects with Farthorn. Several more common accessways intersect
with Green View Avenue. Um, that's good from our perspective because emergency service providers have experience providing services to dwellings along these private access ways. Section 36 allows the board to direct the issuance of a permit where the incro uh
enforcement would of 35 section 35 would entail practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship or where the circumstances of the case do not require the building or structure to be related to a street. Well, we are related to a street. It's just not a public street. It's a private street. Um, and the and
section 36 specifically says it can be subject to conditions that will provide adequate access for firefighting equipment, ambulances, and other emergency uh vehicles. And although Hbert Place is not a public street, it is characterized by some of the same attributes. Humber Place features a
suitably improved driving service. Humber Place has sidewalks on both sides of the street. HR Place is straight, flat, and short. no curves, can easily see Humber Street from the property in question and vice versa. And the dwelling, the proposed dwelling is just
111 feet from the intersection. The fire hydrogen has been installed at the intersection of Humphrey Street and Humber Place. The traffic generation will be no greater for this single family dwelling that's proposed as for the single family dwelling that's on the site today. So,
that doesn't change. Um and so for all of these uh reasons I've gone through in a very short order. Uh Mr. Chairman, I believe the board can grant both the bulk variances either under or both under the uh C1 or the C2 basis. I
believe the board can find that there's no substantial detriment to the public good or the substantial impairment to the master plan or the zoning ordinances. And I think the the board can grant section 35 of relief based on the language that's considered that's
found in section 36 of the MLUL and that the uh based on the attributes of Herbert Place and the property in question and the location of the fire hydrant. So for all those reasons, I believe the board um can grant this application with um
the way that the plan has been drawn. So I I thank you for the board's attention. >> Board members, any questions of the planner? >> I congratulate him on his quickness to going through all that. >> Thank you. I just took a breath.
>> Okay, Mr. Kennedy, what what do you have left this evening? Who else? >> That that is that is it, Mr. Chairman. Um that that is our that's our testimony for this evening. So, thank you all. Um I I think Steve summed it up quite quite nicely for for everyone. Um ultimately
this is improvements to the site that is already a challenging site. Um a small site. We're not increasing the intensity in any way. We are making improvements uh to the accessibility uh to visual appearance and the other elements of the site while um uh in many cases improving
on the existing non-conforming uh conditions. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Um, well, it's after 11. Um, I'm okay if the rest of the board's okay
giving it a few more minutes. I can't go too much longer. Um, but at this point, we have we'll open it up to public comment. Um, Claudia, has anybody indicated they want
to speak on behalf of this application? There's no one on the public. >> Okay. >> I see a hand raised on my screen. Oh, that's my screen. Sorry. Okay. It was my hand. Um, all
right. So, hearing none, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. And uh, Mr. Kennedy, do you want to say anything else before we go into executive? >> I appreciate the second opportunity, but I'll respect your time and uh, let >> Okay. All right, board members. We're in
executive session. So, questions, comments, motions? >> I like the proposed design. >> I think it looks nice. >> I agree. I think it makes sense.
>> Definitely an improvement. >> Definitely what? >> An improvement. >> Yes. Um any other discussion? >> Um the only thing that I would want to make sure was in a any kind of um a
resolution is is the issue of of the um the easement for the um the private drive. Um when I went there uh to look at the property when it was
first noticed um it hadn't been plowed and um it was like maybe 3 4 days after the snowstorm. So I I think that um you know the easement owner needs to have some
responsibilities spelled out. >> I I believe Mr. uh the the zoning memo, the updated one had a suggestion for us to provide the the easements to to you know valid easement to team uh for their uh you know to see um we be happy to do
that. It is a uh there is a fairly complicated document that that governs that um and I'm happy to happy to provide it. >> Okay. Um, a question about the uh what Derek
raised about there not being any uh pins set for the the property lines. Does that need to be some kind of condition that that needs to be done just to have a actual
>> Yes, they have to verify they have to verify that the the wall is in fact on their property. Yes, I would think it would be, Derek. >> What do you think? >> I mean, it's just there's no room. It's
You could see the rear wall meanders into the public alley. Um, without pins being set, how do you build How do you How does the siding How is that set back? It's to the siding of the house, so it's pretty close. You have an inch and a quarter. It's just not a lot of room. I mean,
>> you effectively don't know where the property line is relative to the house. It needs to be You need corner markers. >> That should be in the resolution. Any other comments? I think in my opinion
um if this is the way they propose it, it's their call. I think doing a new house would be it's certainly going to be a lot cheaper than trying to rework what's there and add on to it. That's not going to be cost effective, but
that's the way they choose to go. That's fine. Um so that's my comment. and I have no problem with what they're doing now. Um, but so any other comments or would someone like
to make a motion? I I would like to move to approve with the conditions that we've already just recently talked about. I guess one is Mr. Bridger, did you want to say
something? Yeah, the the variance for the porch addition in the front should be added as a a variance, >> right? >> Appears to be maybe a foot and a half. >> It's the I guess the revision or
expansion that it was understood and that that makes sense to us as well. Now that you Now that you say it that way, >> I guess having proposed the motion, I I should be able to collect the v the various additions that need to happen. But that would be
one um to do this survey and know where the where the property line is precisely. Um >> set set corner monuments so that the corners can be identified. >> Okay. What else? Uh
what else did we >> Well, the proposed parking now, which is what they did, they changed that >> and that that turn around in the driveway. >> Um anything else?
>> The easement to um Humber Place. >> So, how does that how would we word that? Karen, do you have a >> Yeah, I think we can just take what's in Derek's memo in which he says a condition should be imposed requiring the applicant to submit a legally valid
easement agreement showing access to the subject property for review by municipal staff. >> Perfect. >> Is that is that everything? >> I think so. >> I don't remember anything else.
>> Second Okay. Any discussion on the motion before we vote on it? >> Okay. Claudia, can you please call the role? >> Miss Ten? >> Yes. >> Miss Coulson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Shrivever? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stein? >> Yes. >> Miss Donna? >> Yes. >> Cohen? Yes. >> Thank you. It's approved. >> Okay. >> Thank you all particularly for the extra time tonight.
>> You're welcome. >> All right. So, that's it right now. I'm sorry. I got to leave. I got to leave. >> Um, we'll see you all next month. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Good night. All right, everybody.