One second. I got to open it to the public. Okay. Okay. Good evening. I'd like to call this meeting to order and I'll read the opening statement. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment
being held electronically via Zoom on July 23, 2025 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by
prominently posting the Sunshine Notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the Princeton Municipal Complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet, town topics, the Times, Tranonian, and by filing a copy
with the clerk of Princeton on July 1st, 2025, and it has been posted to the municipal website pursuant to executive order 107 due to the state of emergency in New Jersey regarding COVID 19. Notice that during the declared state of
emergency, all regular and special meetings of the Princeton zoning board of adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton pack at town topics and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April
2020. Such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the Princeton Municipal Complex and on the Princeton website and are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the packet the town topics, the Times, the
Trentonian Comcast Media, and by filing a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton. Notices have also been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. Thank you. Yep. Claudia, if you can call the role, please.
Miss Chen, here. Miss Coulson, here. Mr. Floyd here. Mr. Shriber, here. Mr. Tannibon here. Mr. Stein here. Miss Donna, Mr. Dokin here.
Chairman Cohen here. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Uh, we have one resolution this evening and one application. So, let's start with the resolution. It's case number Z23-638
295 Western Way, block 8703, lot 10 and in the R5T zone. A copy of the resolution was in your packets. And are there any questions, comments, corrections? Or if not, would someone
like to make a motion? I'll move approval. Floyd. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you. Claudia, can you please call the role? Miss Chen, yes. Miss Coulson, yes.
Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr. Shrivever, yes. Mr. Stein, yes. Mr. Tenbomb, yes. Chairman Cohen. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. We have one
application this evening. It's case Z24-518, lot 17 or block 6907, lot 17 in the in the B1T zone. Uh Karen, is the noticing all in order? Yes, the noticing is in order and the
board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Okay. Thank you. Claudia is the uh applicant here. Uh yes. Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Okay. Um
Mr. Chair, we do have a few people I think that need to be moved over. I don't know if you want to do that first. Probably it's a good idea. Um we have Josh. I see Kelly Osuch. joined
uh George Akamar's in John Mcdana and Benjamin Grace. Oh, we got Benjamin in John Mcdana. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Everyone is there now? Excuse me.
Do we have everyone? Yes, we do. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Uh Derek, can you read your memo to introduce the I'm gonna give it to Derek? Let me swear you in. You swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful.
Yes, I do. I don't know if you want to swear in Justin. I will. I don't. Dan and Elizabeth. Yeah. Okay. Hand off to them after this. Dan Elizabeth. Then we also have Victor who is the uh traffic consultant for the municipality
here as well. and Frank the MA the fire official in case he needs to testify. Okay. And Elizabeth, well, we'll we'll swear her in when she presents um the HBC memo. So, we've got
Derek and Dan and Justin and Victor and uh Mr. Deore. Do you all swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. I do. Thank you. Okay. Derek, please begin.
Thank you, your honor. Good evening. Um, application has been filed with the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment by Witherspoon and Lee LLC seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval, conditional use authorization, variance relief in accordance with NJSA4
55D, excuse me, 70D4. um and bulk variance relief to construct a three-story addition with a basement level and associated site improvements at 254 Witherspoon. Um Claudia, could you uh bring that near map up, please? Um the
subject site is uh identified as lot 17, block 6907. It's in the B1 zone in the former Princeton Township. It's a 0.22 acre site. It's located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Witherspoon and Lee Avenue. The site contains a 2 and a half story masonary
structure fronting on Witherspoon Street and a nine space parking lot located towards the rear that is accessed via a driveway off Witherspoon. Sites currently occupied as the office of Joshua Zinder Architecture and Design LLC. sites bordered by Lee Avenue. Um
directly to the north and single family houses uh behind it, Witherspoon Avenue street and across the street is the Avalon um on Witherspoon multif family development and single family residences to the south and west. The applicant
proposes to construct a 4673 ft addition to the existing building will feature a basement level and two commercial uses on the upper floor. The addition will contain covered porches along Witherspoon Street and Lee Avenue frontages, green roofs and a mezzanine
from the second to the third floor. The nines parking lot to the rear of the lot will be reconstructed to a sixspace parking lot where one space is located on both this lot and the adjacent residential lot. The driveway accessing Witherspoon Street will be widened to
combine the adjacent residential lot. Additional site improvements include ADA accessible ramps that connect the front entrance to Witherspoon Street and that protrudes into the public right away, a retaining wall along Lee Avenue within the rep uh right ofway adjacent to the
public sidewalk, a paver plaza at the corner of the lot closest to the intersection of Witherspoon and Lee Avenue, bicycle racks, a green roof, roof mounted solar panels, and a waste enclosure. The applicant also proposes to install a closed loop geothermal
system to supplement the HVAC systems. Um, property is located in the B1 zoning district and is subject uh to the 10B 246, 253, 254, 258, and 259 of article 11 division 3 of the Princeton former
township land use code. Uh, the applicant is requesting a D4 variance for floor area ratio in excess of that permitted. The construction of the building addition requires uh a variance in that the maximum F is 0.6 and 0.736
is proposed. The existing floor area of 20,000 or 2515 square ft is proposed to be increased by 4698 square ft to a total of 7,213 square ft representing a 187% increase in floor
area. It's noted that the basement level is not considered floor area and is not included in the floor area calculations. Um while the board's familiar with this type of variance, the applicant doesn't need to demonstrate that the site is uniquely uh suited for the use. It just
that it can accommodate any issues that are associated with the greater F. It does require five affirmative votes. Um applicant also needs a conditional use authorization to use the adjoining driveway and to have the parking space over the uh the lot line. Um they will
be required to enter into an agreement and uh it requires the off- streetet parking uh conditional use requires all the off- streetet parking areas shall be located on the same lot as the building which they are intended to serve and shall be readily accessible where it is
impractical to locate all required parking areas on the same lot. They may be located in whole or apart on a nearby lot provided that a conditional use approval is obtained in accordance with the provision of division 4 of this article except that a conditional approval need not be obtained for
parking at per next to a single family house. Such parking area shall be located within reasonable distance of and shall afford safe access to the buildings they are intended to serve. No parking area shall be situated so as to create a traffic hazard uh for either pedestrians or vehicle vehicles and
legal assurance acceptable to the township attorney except for single family hazard to the uh planning board in this case the zoning board shall be provided by the applicant that the required parking areas will be continuously available. The applicant's proposing oneoff street space that is shared with the adjoining lot on
Witherspoon Street. Um they've provided a shared parking letter of intent with the adjacent lot owner. Um they should expand upon that a little bit. I think that property I know it's for sale and I thought I saw a moving van there today. So uh applicant should bring uh some more information about that which I'm
sure they will. And in making the board's decision for approval of a conditional use, the planning board shall take no action that will substantially impair the intent or the purpose of this article. The board may attach such terms and conditions to an approval of such an application
as in its judgment will serve to uh preserve such public good or such intent or the purpose and shall be guided by the following principle. the local need for the proposed facilities and whether or not the same is adequately served by existing facilities within feasible distance of the area to be served. and
B, the existence of nuisance factors and whether or not adequate shielding by way of landscaping or distance from the near property nearest property line is provided to minimize such factors. The effect of the amount of traffic which the proposed use may reasonably generate
upon existing streets, the safety of nearby uses such as schools and other places of congregation or public service, the peace and quiet of nearby property, and the use of the public right away for parking service or any other purpose. Um there's uh several variances involved
with this application. Um accords with 10B 246 a minimum front yard setback requirements 10. The proposed is 7'5 in to proposed retaining wall for the accessible entrance to the front of the building. The retaining wall is higher
than 6' 6 in and it's considered a structure for the purposes of uh buildings and setbacks in this section. Um they have a height variance in accordance to 10B 246. The maximum height requirement is 30 feet. Um the
proposal is 31 ft 10 in. Um the proposed addition matches the roof elevation of the existing building. However, the grade slopes down towards uh Lee Avenue. Um and it results in a higher uh average grade when you calculate the height and
they need a height variance. Um they require in accordance with 10B307 a required landscaper buffer strip. Um the requirement is a 50 foot wide buffer strip and that would be at the the back of the the lot along the western lot line where 7t exists and uh zero feet
along the southern lot line where no buffer exists. Um this is like a parking landscape buffer uh to separate the commercial use from nearby residential properties. And then section 10B 255.2 two uh neighborhood residential zoning
standards section I the maximum driveway width at the property line the requirements 10 ft and the proposed is 23.52 ft now this is a result of uh the use of the adjoining driveway the combination of the two um
and there's a parking variance um requirement is 53 spaces they have seven spaces provided inclusive of one EV charging station that is counted twice per municipal land use law. Um they also have a sign variance for the
basement laundromat. Um the sign's not contemplated in the ordinance. So they also have two design waiverss. Section 10B 203A4 parking space dimensions requirement is 9 by 18. Their proposal is 8 by 18 at
one parking space. And there's a request from section 10B 203B. The parking aisle width uh requirement for two-way aisle is uh 24 feet with 90 degree turning uh angled spaces and the proposed is 16.5 ft. That's a synopsis of the
application. Uh if you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to address those. You're you're muted, Steve. board members. Any questions of Mr. Burgger? Okay. I think probably
I just wanted to I'm just kind of like dicing or the intro act here. Um I'm going to hand off to Dan Weissman. He's going to go over the site plan criteria, a few issues there. And then Justin Leco has a planning memo. He will uh address uh some of the planning concerns. And
then finally, Elizabeth Kim um will uh speak to the historic preservation review uh memo. Fine. No problem. Good idea. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you very much. Uh and good evening everyone. U I'm just going to briefly uh touch upon some of the more important
staff comments in the engineering and zoning memo as it relates to the site plan. I'm not going to touch on everything. Some of it is uh more procedural comments um that we would ask be made conditions of approval. if this project is approved. Um, so going back
to the required uh landscape buffer strip, uh, the zoning ordinance requires a landscape buffer strip 50 ft in width when a non-residential use is proposed in the lot line borders of residential use or district. Um, the applicant requested a variance from this requirement. Obviously, uh section
T10B-310 states that in order, uh in required buffer areas where a natural buffer strip is deemed impracticable or inappropriate by the border jurisdiction, a suitable screening wall or fence may be substituted as approved by the board of jurisdiction. So, just
asking that the board review the effectiveness of the proposed screening. Um the applicant is proposing to retain an existing board on board fence and supplement with some uh screening and a 4 foot wide planting strip. Um so just a a reflection for the board and
if the applicant can just address that a little bit. Um regarding outdoor lighting for the uh parking lot. Um all uh section T10B 317.1 requires that all outdoor lighting during uh
nonoperational hours of the business or use shall be turned off by 11:00 p.m. or limited to parking areas essential for night use. Uh just asking the applicant to advise on the hours of operation for the exterior lighting. Um, regarding the um structures that uh
lie within the right of way, both both the retaining wall along Lee Avenue and the um pedestrian walkway and seating wall um along Witherspoon Street will require uh an approval from municipal council, be it a site license agreement
um or another agreement acceptable to council and and municipal attorneys. Um but the proposed retaining wall uh along Lee Avenue measures between 2 ft and 4 ft in height um and pro protrudes approximately 18 in into the public rightway along Lee Avenue and will abut
the existing sidewalk. Um staff recommends that this wall be pulled back that 18 in um to the property line and that the sidewalk be widened uh to meet the proposed wall in order to improve circulation within the right of way. And
if it is constructed on the lot, then it would not require uh municipal council approval. Um we're also asking that the applicant consider some kind of striping or change in material along the driveway going towards the rear rear lot. Um just to improve pedestrian circulation and
cyclist safety moving towards the rear. There is some bicycle parking back there. That is where the ADA space is. Um just wanted to see if the applicant can address something for that. Um my last three comments uh have to do with uh ADA requirements. Um so for the
parking lot, the ADA standards require ADA accessible parking spaces located on the shortest accessible route from the parking space to the entrance they serve. Uh the current ADA space is located um appears to be that it could be located closer to the driveway uh to
shorten that distance. Um, so staff just requests that the applicant address that if there's a constraint from a grading standpoint. Um, if there can be some regrading to allow that. Um, but staff, it would just have to be moved to that uh, shortest accessible route,
which would be the southernmost parking lot uh, parking space. Um, the accessible route, there's a diagram in the plans. The accessible route from that parking space um, to the entrance of the building is partially located on the adjacent lot. um just asking that
the applicant demonstrate this route on a grading plan. It's provided in a diagram in the details. We just like to see that on on the grading plan. Um and the applicant will also be required to obtain an easement from the adjacent lot owner for the permanent use of this
accessible route. Um thirdly, and finally, uh a design waiver, as Derek stated, is requested for the drive aisle width. Um we're asking the applicant to provide turning templates that indicate that vehicles can navigate um the narrow drive aisle width. Um that is uh all I
have at this time. Um I guess I can turn it over uh back to you, Mr. Chair. Um yes, thank you. If there's any questions, I'm I'm available. Thank you. I have one question for you. Is there the handicap ramp? Does that project into the rightway on Witherspoon Street?
It does. So that requires council action as well. Correct. Correct. It's it's the the ADA path. There's um some steps which would be permitted. Um and then there's also a a seating wall um near the corner of the
intersection. Thank you. Okay. Um Mr. Burgger, who's next? Mr. Leco. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Bridger. Good evening, members of the board and members of the public. Um, I just have a quick summary of the
comments in my memo dated July 18th, 2025. Um, I will probably go a little out of order for those that are following along with the memo. Uh, I started by commending the applicant for retaining the existing building essentially as it is and also providing a detailed history of the house and the
lineage of its tenants. Uh, to me, it showed the applicant's dedication to preserving the historic structure. Uh however, I had concerns about the bulk and massing of the new addition and particularly the way that the top floor of the addition looks uh which might technically be the same height as the
highest point of the existing building. Uh which would require a slight height variance as Derek just mentioned. Um but it reaches out and it looks much larger than the existing building's pitched roof. Uh practically it seems to only add just under 500 square ft of office
space to this proposal. Um, and I would say keep all that in mind um, as it pertains to the F variance that Derek also mentioned. Uh, the addition is also in a ve very prominent location just being in the corner of a corner lot, especially as you're going southbound on
Witherspoon Street. Um, and I know that HBC commented on that in terms of the relation of this proposal to the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District itself. Uh, moving on, I was concerned about the pathway someone would take from that ADA space in the rear of the site, then through the neighboring
property's driveway down a slight slope, and then back to the front on those ADA ramps that you'll see in a minute, u which include multiple switchbacks to get to the building. So, I mean, in some ways, it seems like it's the long longest possible route um for someone who who has those accessibility issues.
Um, and I question if there were any alternatives to avoid that, like an entrance in the rear of the building. Um, and keep that in mind for the parking conditional use authorization uh request that Derrick mentioned as well. Um, I also had some smaller questions that I expect the applicant will clear
up about the proposed sidewall on Lee Avenue and an existing tree over there, too. Uh more generally though, I think the expansion is a good thing in this area of town where there has been an increase in residential density from the Avalon apartment building across the street on top of the existing dense
areas uh like the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood and the high school uh area. Um this has led to an increase in businesses doing well in the area which obviously is a good thing. um like those at 281 Witherspoon Street, the office building uh next to Avalon, um and at
the repurposed Princeton Packet Building at 300 Witherspoon uh about a stones throw away. Plus all the food uses in the area uh the newer ones. And my lights just went out. Um I'll keep going though. Uh like the meeting house. I think you can still see me. All the food
uses in the area like the newer ones, the Meeting House, the Elite 5 Sushi, Delissioso Bakery not too far. um alongside the longtime kind of staples in the area like Tiger/Molasana Delhi and Kantis. Um I say all that to
say it's a good thing that the applicant is not only expanding their own office headquarters but also adding in a small space for an additional business. And that space does not really seem conducive to food uses. Um, which is also a good thing as uh the recently
adopted master plan warns about the commercial balance in Princeton leaning towards just food uses as is seen on Nassau Street and parts of Witherspoon. And I would imagine this smaller space would be a good one to allow for a business uh to kind of incubate and and
build up uh its presence in Princeton. Uh the application also includes a laundromat which is sorely needed in the area. Um, I obviously work not too far from this site on Witherspoon Street, but I also live pretty close to it. And I'm constantly seeing the working-class uh population of Princeton that keeps
our town running have to take their laundry on their bike handlebars or over their heads all the way to the laundromat at the shopping center. Um, I think it would be much appreciated appreciated for someone who was working, you know, 40, 60 hour weeks in a manual
job or a restaurant to bring the clothes that need laundering really in those lines of work. Uh, just that much closer to where they live and cut that trip on foot or bike with a heavy bag uh down in both time and distance, you know, particularly on a Friday night um when
when many of those folks seem most active doing that. Um, and I know this has been an important uh goal to the municipality for at least the five years I've been here. Um, lastly, I did also note the unique situation that the property is in. Um, the building was
built prior to our zoning codes. Um, then the township zoning code it that it's basically currently in is largely reflective of kind of 1960s suburban land use practices in the former township. Um, however, and notably, a
business zone was put on this area of Witherspoon Street, where many residential properties were already in existence and continue to be in existence. Um, and then that was followed later on by the locally designated Witherspoon Jackson Historic District where the historic features of
the neighborhood often conflict with the strict standards of that zoning. Um, and then just finally marrying all that together with the needs of the applicant's business and of Princeton in 2025. Uh, so that's all I have to say at this time. I'm going to see if I can get my light back on. Um, and I'm happy to
answer any questions you might have. Board members, any questions? And Mr. Tlesco. Okay, Mr. Bger next. Uh, Miss Kim is our next presenter this evening. Elizabeth, we just need to
swear you in. Do you swear from your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. Um, so the applica applicant came before HPC at their May 19th, 2025 meeting and uh I believe that all the um board
members had received the HBC chair which is um her memo which is dated July 11th. Um so obviously the proposed two-story addition is um proposed on the north side of the existing building and is
connected by a glazed hyphen that is intended as a transition between the new and existing structure. So just to kind of uh go off script of the chair's memo, I just want to give a little history of the property for the board members. So the house on the property is a colonial
style built in circa 1920. It's rectangular two and a half story with a raised foundation stucco exterior wall and a gable roof. The Witherspoon Street facade is three bay symmetrical and fenistrations align between the floors. Their paired double hung windows are
located on each side the center front door and centered single uh double hung windows are above it. On the second floor, there's almost a full width covered porch with evenly spaced Tustin columns and a hip roof.
Centered wood stairs with simple ballast rates lead up to the porch. On the south elevation are two windows on each floor above basement windows and a small centered flat uh gable end window. And on the north facade are three windows on each floor and a shallow flat roof
twotory wing with a floor first floor window that extends across the rear. And there are basement windows also found on that north foundation wall. Now, I'm not going to be talking about the west elevation because HBC uh actually doesn't review that because it's not visible from the right of way. Um and as
Mr. Leco had mentioned that the applicant had hired a consult called consultant, hence uh excuse me, Hunter Research who performed historical background on the property and identified the house as a as Anetta V. Taylor House, which she and her family
lived in until 1993. So, a little bit history on Anetta. She was born in 1868 in Baltimore, Maryland. Her father was a professor and her mother was a prominent leader in the black churches and social organizations. Annetta married Alexander Taylor and
with their nine children eventually moved to Princeton after living in Annapolis, Maryland, and Philadelphia for a while. While in Princeton, Anetta and her family moved from house to house in Witherswin Jackson neighborhood. She worked as a laundress for Francis Patton, president of Princeton
Theological Sea Seminary and former PU president and worked for his family as well. Annetta's older children were employed in town as a porter, laborers, service workers or performing housekeeping duties while the younger children attended the Witherspoon School
for Colored Children on on Quarry, which is also to many is known as the Waxwood. In December of 1992, Anetta Taylor was able to purchase a 0.23 acre parcel of land, which is a large lot in that
neighborhood. It took several years before the house was completed, but by 1996 at the age of 58, she and her surviving children moved into their new house at 254 Witherspoon Street. Annetta died in 1994 and bestowed the
house to her oldest children with specific instructions that the property be kept in the family by passing it on to other siblings. The house was passed on from family member to family member, allowing to be owned and occupied by the family until 1993 when it was eventually
sold. The property exchanged ownerships for a few times until 2020 when the property was purchased by Witherspoon and Lee LLC and occupied by Jos Cinder Associates and Design. This property is identified as a
contributing property to the Witherspoon Jackson historic district and it is classified as type two historic district which is subject to preservation plan review for anything visible from the right of way public rightway. So I first want to mention what HPC
supported on the project. They very much like that glaze hyphen which allows for a sensitive transition between the existing house and new addition. The glazing makes the new addition appear as a separate building. Therefore the building on the property
will visibly read as two separate structures which will help to maintain an appropriate streetscape along Witherspoon Street. Um, HPC was also pleased that the applicant retained the south elevation of the existing building and they also very much appreciated that
Hunter's research history on the property. Um, provided light about Anita Taylor which was unknown. Um, and they encouraged the applicant to work with the Witherspoon Jackson Historical and Cultural Society to install a historic plaque on the property so that he could
be incorporated with the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District Neighborhood Source. Um they also appreciated the fact that um a laundromat was being provided which they had felt was very appropriate for the population that live within that
neighborhood and would be of great service to um the general public there. Um but generally HP felt there was a lot of attention and carefully planned design details to the Witherspoon Street facade of the building and not enough
attention or consideration to the Lee a Avenue streetcape. And so when it came time for HPC to vote, they did um vote on only matters that they uh had u information on. they uh did not have all
the consultants reports so or the landscape plan but that was just because it was inadvertently left out by accident. Um but they did vote unanimously to recommend to your board endorsement of the application. However, this endorsement came with specific
recommending considerations. Um so one is that they um regard regarding the mass and proportion of the top section which the applicant uh refers to as the studio floor uh which is the new 2 and a half edition. HP felt HBC felt that some of
the architectural features such as the upper floor studios projecting roof line and overhang which extended closer to Witherspoon Street than the other than the existing house roof line is too prominent and was reviewed as an aggressive design feature which does not
reflect historic building of the neighborhood. By improving the massing and diminishing the roof line features, HBC felt it would be less awkward. Um, they also comment that the upper floor studio windows on the Witherspoon facing
street edition are a bit jarring. The fenestrations with true muttons, even in a modern style, would be more relatable to the existing house. The black window trim was also not considered compatible or appropriate. And though the applicant advised the color was selected to make
the space disappear, HP felt that this was not achieved. Uh the relocation of the front porch was also of concern. The house including the steps of the front porch is very symmetrical and shifting that porch
entrance and stairs to the left bay was disrupting the balance of the symmetry with the relocation of the porch stairs. Uh the applicant also indicated the porch railings are proposed to be replaced with higher railings. Uh this was not supported by HPC and they
further commented that that was not a code requirement. The switch back and forth of the new front walkway to accommodate the handicap accessibility they felt took over the whole front yard. The design was reviewed was viewed as disruptive to
the front lawn and not compatible to the Witherspoon Street streetscape. It was recommend the applicant consider an entrance to the building at the northeast corner of the building. addition where access could be provided at grade and an elevator installed.
HBC further felt in inappropriate that the addition is positioned on the north side of the existing building which completely erases its presence from Lee Avenue streetscape. Um um they did not they did appreciate that the addition small three bay will
relate to the house on the adjacent property to its west. However, it was recommended that its elevation be slightly lowered to reflect existing grade and lower the building height with additional landscape at the corner. It was further recommended that the main
volume of the addition be pulled back behind both buildings about 15 to 20 ft behind the Taylor House kitchen. This would retain the presence of the historic house along Lee Avenue and create separate volumes of buildings and produce nice shadow lines during the
day. um and look less monolithic. And according to Hunter Research's summary of historic significance and integrity where they state from a special perspective, the house's compar comparatively large yard anchor the northeast corner of the district, the
relatively wider three-bay symmetrical center Paul plan colonial revival style single family Anita Anetta V. Taylor House finishes the smooth stucco cladding on the exterior and molded wood trim on both the exterior and interior.
Standing out as a large residence with ample lawn space, it was likely designed to reflect the aspiration and success of Anetta and her children. HBC commended that the place commented that the placement of addition should take into
consideration retain the existing tree at the property corner and or incorporate some corner vegetation so the house can have some room to breathe with some greenery. The Lee Avenue streetcape
uh facing building edition lacks attention and design detail as was given to the Witherspoon Street facade and they recommend that the applicant provide a little bit more attention to that side of the building. Uh HBC also recommended that any LED lighting should
be in the warm spectrum of no greater than 2700 Kelvin. And they also recommend that any new utilities be installed underground. And as always, HBC always appreciates the opportunity for them to offer their review and comments to your board. And if any of
the board members have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them now with Nathan. Thank you. Thank you. Um board members, any questions of Miss Kim? George. George, are you with us?
Sorry to interrupt, Steve. Okay. Um, my my question is the chair's memo was issued on the 11th. Yes. Has has there been any dialogue between
you and the applicant on these uh comments conditions of of the endorsement? Um, no. Uh and and actually uh you know to be fair I believe that they received the memo um and Chris you could confirm
probably like maybe two weeks ago so they haven't had it a long time but they were at the meeting so it shouldn't be a surprise either. Yeah. Two weeks ago was a fair amount of time given Okay. That that was basically
my question cuz there's pretty substantial conditions and it seems areas of disagreement. So I was hoping y'all will have had talk between then and now.
That's okay. That's that's it. Thank you. Um board members, any other questions? Okay. Um, Mr. Chairman, we we have Dan Durbilski, the um Oh, okay.
board landscaper. And we have the fire official here. I don't know if you would like him to present his review memo or just mention any concerns that he has. No, I would like to hear from the fire official very much as well as Mr.
Doilski. But uh maybe we can take the fire official first if that's okay. Mr. De. Yes. There you go. Great. Thank you, sir. Would you like to to just um summarize the your review memo? I think
it's dated April 24th, 2025. Darren, excuse me. Does he have to be sworn in? He was sworn in. I was. Sorry. Okay. He was. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so my board memo was um
concerning the the laundromat going in the lower level of the new building and the fact that there was no suppression in the building. Um, laundromats are notorious areas for firefighters. Uh I have not
worked in a municipality where we have not had incidents in commercial laundromats and being in the basement or lower level of a structure uh is an area of concern for us especially on that corner where in my memo as I point out
uh there's limited um uh access for ladders and things of that nature because of all the wires and overhead obstructions. So, uh, our recommendation was to move ahead with a NFPA13
suppression system, uh, to help alleviate any of these problems. Uh, the sprinkler system would help keep the fire in check, keep it small until we can get there. And that's basically it.
Okay. I think it's a good recommendation. Um, board members, do you have any questions of the fire chief? Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Um, you're welcome, Mr. Doilski.
Yes. Thank you. Good evening. You do win on the background award, though. I mean, it's very nice. Your background is very nice. And I'm not sure if we swore you win. Uh, if we did, we'll just do it twice. Do you swear affirm your testimony this
evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. I've submitted a report on June 17th, 2025. Uh there are several comments. Um the first one is relative to the existing trees. Uh there are two
existing trees on the property that may have been mentioned previously. One of them is a calorie pair and one of them is a Japanese maple. Uh they are mature, fairly mature trees, not very mature trees. However, they are um
exotic species, invasive species. They're severely invasive. Uh so the removal of those species could be considered a beneficial uh element ecologically uh to the community. Uh their calorie
pair and Japanese maple. Um, so, um, I I think in my review I didn't think it was actually feasible to preserve those trees relative to the proposed improvements. Um, but the removal of them could be considered somewhat
beneficial from an ecological point of view. Uh, I did also in comment two remark on the street trees, the trees between the curb and sidewalk. There are um a couple of ZOVA trees. One of them
is in severe decline, meaning it's failing. And it would be um beneficial if the applicant could um enter a dialogue with the municipal arborist to discuss replacement of that tree.
Um, in comment three, I commented on the private hedge, which is a shrub, a tall shrub, hedge row that is about four to five foot height at present, which occurs along the entire frontage of this property with the exception of the
driveways. And with this proposal, that entire hedro will be removed. So it does provide it currently provides a buffer between the property and the street and that will be removed. Um in comment four
of my report um I discussed that the the rear property boundary at the back w will be become a commercial to residential land use transition line and is subject and as such will be subject
to requirements for visual buffering in terms of dimension and the density of planting. At present, the offset between the parking lot and the property line measures eight feet and the existing wood fence provides a physical uh and
visual separation at the lower levels. The pro proposed construction will reduce this dimension of the landscape buffer strip to 4 feet, but they are proposing to retain the fence. Um and they are proposing to add a new
hedge row of cherry laurel which is an evergreen planted at 5 to six foot height and spaced at 3 to 3 and 1/2t between the plants. The combination of the fence and planting will provide a dense year- round buffer
at ground level. Um I also commented that a single uh tree a small tree magnolia Virginia which is a sweep magnolia is proposed between the building and the addition and the adjacent red
residential structure in a rather wide planting area that's provided. This tree will provide a filter buffer between the upper levels of the existing residential property on Lee Avenue and the upper level office of the new building
addition edition. This is a sensible landscape design relative to the dimensions allocated for landscape buffer as proposed but will it will not provide a complete visual screen between the uses
at the upper levels. Um, moving on to comment five. Uh, there is a 10- foot wide landsc landscape strip that will be created between the proposed building addition and Lee
Avenue sidewalk on this property. The planting within this strip will include understory uh cherry trees and a mix of deciduous and evergreen shrubs at ground level. The addition of the cherry trees will
function similar to street trees which is desirable since there is not sufficient space to within the right of way for new street trees uh along this frontage and the presence of overhead wires will not allow for street trees.
However, the proposed cherry tree selection should be coordinated with the municipal arborist as the proposed cherry is not a native species and the mature height and width of these trees might present conflicts with the wires sidewalk and the building in this
location. So, they may have to just consider what species to plant. In comment six, I noted that there are several other plant species specified at v location various locations to enhance the proposed walkways
and ramps um which are also non-native species um which present ecological concerns for the area and that alternate species that are indigenous should be considered in place of the non native or
non-indigenous species. In comment seven, I noted that the corner plaza or terrace that is proposed at the lower level entrance to the building um is impervious pavers as you probably already heard and could be a very
aesthetic and functional addition to the neighborhood and that the applicant and board should discuss the potential benefits or detriments of adding some benches or seasonal planters or pods to this plaza. The details for this type of
pavers, color, pattern should be reviewed relative to the streetscape sidewalk layout materials. In comment eight, um I indicated that the applicant should describe the location and size of any proposed or
anticipated outdoor mechanical equipment or meters and whether they are being screened appropriately. And the final comment number nine was this that the um with the new landscape they should make sure that they address
how the the landscape will be irrigated or watered um uh to make sure that it survives and actually gets acclimated and survives. And at the minimum we would typically suggest that they provide hose bibs on the building in
some location so that that could occur. Um so that's what I offered in my report. Um, if there was any specific questions, I'd be happily entertain those questions. Board members, any questions of Mr. Dolberowski?
Okay. Thank you very much for your report. Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Bridger, is that it? You're muted. That's it. You're shaking your head. Okay. Um All right. Um I do have a question before we turn the meeting over
to Mr. Degresia. Um Mr. Degreesia, do you feel that that you have adequate time to finish this application this evening? I hope so. Okay. I mean, you'll you have you have our undivided attention,
Mr. Chairman. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, do you want to indicate just because I don't know if we have public or anybody watching, how long or how late tonight do you expect the board to go? Would 11 be it or
I'd like to hear from Michael first. Michael, what was your question? Actually, I have um two questions. Uh one, we we had the Princeton Environmental Commission report. Is that being presented? that was in our
packet and it was pretty substantial. Um and my second question um due to some error on my part um I got confused regarding
um accessing Justin's memo and when I just went um you know the planning memo and I days ago I confused myself but I just went online to try to find it and I didn't find it there. Now, are there any
other board members that have never seen Justin's memo? Claudia, did did you email that memo to everyone? I thought I saw your email come in saying that you were emailing it. Yes, it was attached to the HBC. It was
the HBC chair memo and Justin's memo, the planners memo. No, actually, you said you didn't include it in your packet. delivered, right? Because they were not ready at the time I delivered the packages.
So that's why I send them via email. When the packets were delivered, they did not include those two memos, right? But they were emailed that same afternoon. If you they're attached.
I I didn't see that, but that's okay. Um, I my question still stands. Did all the board members get to see it and read the planner's memo? I did. Did anybody not?
Okay. So, Eve's saying she did not. Stephen, you're shaking your head. I think I did not. Haron shook his head. I I I did not. I didn't see you. I didn't see. That's a problem. Well, do you want Mr.
Leco to go through the memo more carefully? I think he just touched on some particular highlights. He could do that. Um yeah. Um if if I may, um his memo isn't
that long and I think Mr. Leco did a great summary. Um our presentation this evening is a very detailed presentation and we have all of the reports um we expect to respond to comments in all of the reports including the planners
report. So I think that even if you hadn't read that um the memo beforehand between Mr. Leco's summary and our um very detailed presentation this evening. I think we'll pretty much have everything covered because we're going
to respond to each of the comments in the reports. And Mr. Chair, if I could add to that, uh I would say the only things that I didn't cover in my uh you know, I covered the comments and then the rest of my memo is the existing uh conditions
and the proposal. The only things that have not been covered yet um are the transit in the area um and the parking in the area. So I'd be happy to cover those now if you'd like. And I believe you're on mute, Mr. Chair.
Um, yes, I I would think that'd be a good idea. So, we have the benefit of as much of your report initiative as we can get. And then quite frankly, after the presentations, if the board members feel that that there's something lacking in
their planning aspect of the uh review, then we'll call upon you again. Excellent. Thank you. Uh so on the transit side um the NJ Transit 605 bus line runs by the subject property on Witherspoon Street as it goes to the uh
from the Quaker Mall all the way up past the shop right in Montgomery. Uh the free Princeton Muni bus runs on Witherspoon Street and there are sheltered bus stops um both on the northbound and southbound side of Witherspoon Street. uh one by the little pocket park next to the Avalon building
across and then one about a block away in front of the panel learning center. Uh there are metered parking spaces on the northbound side of Witherspoon Street uh on the block directly across from the subject property. So basically in front of the Avalon Witherspoon
block. Uh there are also some on the southbound side or the same side as the subject property as you get past Clay Street um on Franklin Avenue and on Henry Avenue in the area. Uh limited free parking can be found on Lee and Birch Avenues and elsewhere uh in uh
kind of maybe a a half mile from the subject property on both sides both in Witherspoon Jackson and as you get towards the high school on Henry and uh Lee or excuse me Henry and Franklin Avenue avenues. Um, and I also mentioned
the publicly accessible underutilized paid parking garage uh that exists from the old Princeton Hospital and was uh uh incorporated into the Avalon project across the street. Um, that parking is available uh as well to the public.
And I think that's basically it for now. All right. Um All right. Let's uh so can I guess you asked this in terms of timing, Karen. Um yeah, we're obviously not obligated to start any new applications after 10:30 and we
can we can close the the hearing at 11:00. Um I mean this is subject to board discussion but my feeling is um assuming it doesn't um there's so no reason to
close it prematurely or at a break in a testimony. I would think that 11 would uh any other comments on that? Did we didn't get the last few words there? We've had we've had Oh. Oh, sorry. I know I had a problem
here, but since we uh uh I would say 11 o'clock would be it and um I'd like to hear from other board members just to make sure 11's good. Uh again, if there's depending on where we're at, if there's a break in a testimony and it's closer to that. Uh part of it is we had
a a meeting last week, special meeting last week, we have our normal meeting this week and we have a special meeting next week. So, it's, you know, we want, you know, I want to try to, uh, give the board members some breath here. So,
board members, any questions about that. Okay. So, we'll assume that 11 would be it tonight, Miss Karen? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Degreesia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um,
for the record, I'm Christopher Degreesia from the law firm of Figury Drinker Bidd and Wreath here on behalf of the applicant Witherspoon and Lee LLC. Um, first I just want to thank uh staff members for their detailed um
summaries and um comments. Uh like I said, we have a very detailed presentation. um hearing about it and seeing some of the renderings and photos will I think make it different so you could see the whole picture. Um what's great about
this application here is that you have um basically an applicant or tenant that lives and and works in Princeton. They're very familiar with the community and they've brought this very sensitive, thoughtful approach. Um the themes are
the same themes that are very important in the um municipality itself. You know, preservation, access, accessibility, sustainability, community needs. And you'll see that as we go through our presentation over and
over again. As already touched upon the first theme of preservation, um we talked about um how HPC really appreciate it. um how we respected the history here and didn't just add on to
the house but actually created a glass setback separation so that the historic fabric of the building and the integrity of that side could be preserved. In terms of accessibility, there is none today. There's none. So the improvements
that we focused on we believe are inviting and it is a site that was developed in 1920. So it brings with it a lot of difficulties. Um but you'll see how we've gone about and how we've created a plan that we think is um both
inviting and non-discriminatory. In terms of sustainability, there's just so much to talk about in terms of green strategies, green roof, solar panels, geothermal, EV charging, um porous pavement, and the list the
list goes on. even the preservation of the house itself. Um, and then last, the focus on community needs, and you've heard that echo throughout the comments of the municipal reports. You have a very much needed laundromat to support
the neighborhood and surrounding communities. We're introducing a small neighborhood retail which is basically a welcome addition to this business zone which has re really never taken off. And
we are um able to do this by keeping a local business office um Josh Cinder's architect and design to allow it to grow in place as part of the community um with a lot of really nice elements in
between. So I don't want to take up too much time because I know we've had a lot of uh details on this application already. So, I would like to introduce my first witness, Josh Zinder, who is a licensed architect in New Jersey. And
Josh, can we uh we'll have to go through your qualifications and get you sworn in. Excuse me. I I Josh has testified before us. He's a very qualified architect in my opinion. I think we can accept him as an expert.
We appreciate that. Josh, just to confirm for the record, you're licensed in New Jersey and your license is currently valid. Yes. Mr. Degrretzia, just to clarify, Mr. Zinder is also a principle of the applicant. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And Mr. Zinder, you swear
affirming your testimony. Technically, I'm a manager of where is the technical. All right. So, you're the managing member. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, do you swear from your testimony this evening will be truthful? Yes.
Thank you. Okay. My screen taken away. Yes. I think what we'll do is we have a presentation. Um that is uh is it uh can we mark it as A1 the
PowerPoint as one exhibit and then do you know how many slides it is Chris? Yes I do. I believe it'sundred and what is it? 13 113 113 songs. Okay. As I said, detailed.
Excuse me. Just let me add one thing. I'm going to I have to stand up periodically. So when I do, I'm going to just shut my monitor off, but I'll be listening in here. It only be a minute each time. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.
All right, Mr. Zinder. can you um well we have just sworn in. So um actually I'll I'll let you tell us a little bit about the project um and um start I guess with the location and then the goals. Okay. Thank you for having us this
evening. Uh here you see the existing Colonial Revival structure at 254 Witherspoon Street in the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood which our office has occupied since June uh 2021. Uh, as a clarification, our proposal is
technically a two-story addition to this existing two and a half story structure, although you can reasonably say the addition is two and a half stories. Um, we received Friday afternoon the planners report. Um, as a result, we made some minor revisions to this presentation from what we had sent on
Friday. Um, but we felt that it was important to make sure that we're being complete and responding fully. The focus of this project is to maximize the utility of the property to contribute to the well-being of the neighborhood, maintain the historic asset, the Anetta V. Taylor House,
provide community support elements, provide universal accessibility to the building uses, and create a model of sust for sustainability, create a highly contextual structure utilizing the form, scale, and materiality of the neighborhood.
Here you see the Sanborn map from 1875 without the structure and the 1927 Samborn map which is the first time it shows up. The property has an interesting history. It was originally part of the Lee estate as in Lee Avenue and functioned as
farmland. In 1922 the property was purchased by Annetta V. Taylor, who built the six-bedroom house sometime between 1923 and 1926. For a workingclass black woman to build a home for her nine children during this
period on a prominent street in Princeton is remarkable. Her history and that of her family is fascinating. Some of which you can see in the historic report that we've submitted. In 1993, the family sold the house and it
exchanged hands a few times. In 2016, it was included as part of the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District as a contributing structure. Our office has occupied the property for the last four four and a half years. Uh we've to coordinate with the Wispoon Jackson
Historic and Cultural Society to locate a historic marker that recognizes Anetta B. Taylor and her family. Um which I'll show you where it's going um later in the presentation. Here you see the property on a location map
on the corner of Witherspoon and Lee Avenue. Uh this is a map I'm sure you're all familiar with. It's the town's Witherspoon Jackson historic district map and we've highlighted the project site. And just for the record, that's slide six. And now we're on slide seven.
Yeah. Okay. I'll throw those into slide seven. Uh here you see in the context of the town, the site is a short walk to the central business district. Um, of note is that the property is a 28 minute walk and a seven-minute bike ride to the
only laundromat in town at the Princeton shopping center. When we moved into the building, I sat on our porch watching day after day individuals with bags of laundry walking to the shopping center from the Witherspoon Jackson neighborhood. We recently composed a survey of the
neighborhood to better understand the need. Our surveys were distributed electronically by the community members and they were posted around the neighborhood and in some of the local shops. Most respondents were married, most were Spanish speakers, most were women and had children. Some of the
information we learned was that 53% of the respondents use a laundromat for their laundry. And another 29 use shared laundry equipment in their building. The remaining 18% do laundry in their home.
76% of the respondents use the Princeton Shopping Center laundromat and you can often see them on sunny days, rainy, snowy days alike, walking, riding with their laundry across town. Further, in asking if we had a
laundromat at our location, 79% said they would use a laundromat at this location and all but 8% would b excuse me, all but 8% would walk, um, bike or take public transit. Here you see the building as it currently
exists. The slight yellow hue on the stucco. You see here the existing Witherspoon streetscape and with the proposed structure in the context of the streetscape. The buildings across the street are in red dotted lines on the drawing.
Here's a Lee Avenue streetscape and you can see the contextual void at the end of the block with the larger 4 and a half story Avalon Bay apartments looming large across the street. Looking at Lee Avenue streetscape, you can see the existing repeating gable
roofs that run down the street which we pull into our design. So these gabled the roofs and we pull that into our design. Here's a diagram of the property with the existing building. We will use this to outline the concepts behind the design.
Here you see the glass hyphen connector we are using to separate our addition from the existing structure. The gray change along with the spoon street puts the corner elevation at the same level as our basement. This would allow access from the street to the
basement of our building. We then add two contextually. You're cutting out here. Am I cutting out for everybody? No, I can we can I can hear me too. I can
hear. Okay, I'll continue then. Um, we then added two contextually scaled forms to the basement level. a gabled roof element which picks up on Lee Avenue's repeated gabled roof lines um the context there and a simple rectal linear
form which picks up on the adjacent Witherspoon Street building forms connecting these elements we have our studio space tying all of the forms together after earlier discussions earlier even before the HPC meetings
with Elizabeth Kim we decided to pull back the solid facade and open it up with a glass with with glass effectively pulling back the curtain of the facade to allow for a clearer view of the historic structure and lightening up of the facade.
Here you see the entire massing of the building. We did look at other options for the site including taking advantage of the AH07 looking at a mixeduse housing office retail solution for the site which in the end did not allow us to
have the apartments below our office so it didn't work but it was a viable excuse me we also looked at at the property as if it was being taken advantage of the HO7
um and uh and it would have been viable in the overlay. This solution was a 10-unit apartment structure above retail and above a laundromat space. Uh and this would have been compliant um in the affordable overlay.
In looking at that comparison, our design is substantially smaller than the potential three and a half story solution. In the overlay, there is no front setback which would allow the construction to go all the way to the sidewalk which we are are pulling back from. Here
you see the existing site plan and with our proposal for the site you can see the open space plaza we are creating on the corner. Looking at the new site you can see our proposed shared parking spot and the combined drive which is considered to be
impervious coverage as it stands now um and it as it is currently a gravel separator. You can see the slope surfaces which will provide an accessible entry to all tenencies. And when I say slope surfaces, it's because these are not ramps. They are at a 1 to
20 slope and therefore a slope surface. Uh the slope surface walkways enables access to all tenants from the public side of the building. An accessible element in the back of the building would not provide accessibility to all tenants. And if it was and if there
there was access to a common it would have to be through a common lobby which would end up making the building even larger. You can see the green buffers and please note the area where the cars are parked on the lot will be porous pavement. The signed LOI with our
neighbor allows for our use during the day and their use at night of the parking space that straddles the property line. uh in Justin's report and earlier he mentioned he mentioned that we have to verify um talked about the new purchaser of the property and that
they will have to have a commitment to the LOI regarding the parking spot and the accessible path. Uh this past weekend I met with the purchaser. Uh they have not closed on the property yet. Um however it's close because clearly the neighbor moved out
yesterday. Um, however, they did see the benefits for the new pro for their new property as well because the benefits for that spot are not just for our office but for them as well. Um, and we are aware that in order to finalize the compliance, we will need to have the
easement in place for this approval. So, we're well aware of that. And Josh, before you go on, just so they can see here because I think it's a good picture, the two residential parking spa spots. Um, the easement agreement will allow them to back up and use our area
so that they enter Witherspoon faced forward rather than backing out into Witherspoon if they had to stay on their lot. Correct. So moving on
here you see the landscape plan. Um our landscape architect cannot be with us tonight so I will fill in what I can here. However, we will work with the municipal arborist to reach agreement on all the planting selections. Um one item of note is the large tree in the corner
of the property which you see in red up here. Um we had actually thought it was over the property line um but it's not and it will be um staying and we are maintaining that tree. Um the back of the property will have a buffer of tall shrubs,
a new tree in addition to the existing um tree shown in the red circle. Um along Lee Avenue there will be planter beds with understory trees in the planters between the slope surfaces. On Witherspoon Street, we will have green ground cover and some low shrubs.
Our landscape architect provided a response to the landscape architect report um which was sent through after Friday. I'm not sure if anyone's had a chance to review it yet, but um for items 1 to four and seven, we have no comment. Item nine, uh we would expect
the plant things to be watered by hand um from one of two hose bibs that we will have on the building. um possibly three hose bibs. We're looking into that. Um on landscape comment number five, the Environmental Commission landscape comment. Um the proposed
shrubs along the 10-ft buffer are both shade tolerant and native. Uh the cherries were selected for several reasons, not the least of which is they are a tree that will not grow to the scale that PSAG will cut them apart as they have done to so many trees, so many
of the street trees on Lee Avenue. Um for item number six, the ground covers were selected so they will be sun tolerant and grow in a bound planter. It is important that the plants in the planters stay green all year and are easy to maintain. English ivy and binka
primarily spread through trailing stems and since they are planted between paved ramps, their growth will be contained within the beds. While English ivy can also spread by seed, this only occurs if it advances into the mature stage and can grow vertically. In this location,
it will remain in its juvenile form, preventing flowering and seeding. All these issues will be reviewed with the arborist and resolution provided before as part of the compliance documents. The basement level of the building will be a laundromat. We currently have an
LOI for a tenant to take occupancy and two backup other laundromat companies that are interested in the space. Uh we expect to have a sprinkler for the laundromat level as well. Um we just didn't have it documented as we thought it was premature for that, but we do
intend to have a sprinkler for the laundromat. Um here you see the first floor with the future tenant um on the first floor of our excuse me the future tenants in pink. Our office is over here. Uh, one
thing to note is the new stair in the existing structure. When we moved in, uh, we removed a non-code compliance stair um, in this location that's right here. Okay. And the fire inspector is requesting that we add this stair back
as a result. Um, our new stair will be code compliant and as a result of that, we have to add a new door on the back of the building. Um the second floor uh is part of our studio and the top half story uh is an existing
attic space and a new mezzanine which will also be used as part of our office. The mezzanine and stair in the office are needed as the fire inspector requires that we have a second means of egress from the existing attic level floor uh which doesn't exist right now.
We did not run the hyphen connector up to this level which would have allowed us to make that e-ress connection. Okay. Um specifically because that would put it higher than the existing building and the goal was to create two separate clearly distinctive elements. The
mezzanine needs to exist for this access. If we were to cut it back and reduce the F impact, it would not end up reducing the height of the structure. the volume would still be needed in order to get that to that stair.
Here you see the roof plan with the green roofs and solar panels and the new synthetic slate and metal roofs. In looking at the elevation of the Witherspoon Street and Lee, excuse me, in looking at the elevation of
Witherspoon Street and Lee Avenue, it is important to note that the slope surface that we are creating at the front of our building for accessible entry is not a ramp. It is pitched at less than 1 to 20 and will thereby not need handrails in order to preserve the view of the front
of the historic dis historic building and not clutter the front of the building with a field of railings. The low pitch surface also allows us to green the front of the building in addition to accessibility. HBC had requested that we maintain the height of
the existing railing. Um we have modified the design in order to do this. So those rails are we're going to try to repair and match them. Uh please note that the door from the laundromat on Lee Avenue down here u this is used for
emergency egress only will be labeled as such um on the interior and we'll have no exterior hardware. It is not an entry and and we did that specifically because we didn't want people coming in and out on Lee Avenue which we thought specifically of as a residential street.
Um here you see the secondary ele elevations that face the back of the property. Looking at the materials used on the project, we start with the Stuckco on the existing building, which we intend to repaint to be closer to the original yellow.
And just to to reflect, we are on page uh that was slide 36. Now we're on side 37. Yeah. So going on to 38. Uh we bring the stucco material over to the box form on the corner. However, the stucco material
will be white in lie of the yellow on the new um in lie of yellow which is on the existing structure. The existing slate on the building will be replaced by synthetic slate as the existing slate is too heavy for the
structure and needs to be replaced as it is failing. Um we spend a considerable time um we spend considerable time working on our material options here. The roof cannot be repaired in its current state.
It needs to be replaced in its entirety. Uh it reached that state before we actually purchased the property with roof leaks and falling slate pieces. Uh we considered replacing the slate with asphalt shingles which have been improved in the neighborhood uh historic district in the past. However, we feel
that the visual representation of the synthetic material closely matches the actual slate and we believe that a passer by would be hardressed to determine that it's actually artificial. And we did bring samples of that uh that slate and we bring that we brought
samples of that slate that artificial slate over to HBC when we presented and we bring that slate over to the new structure wrapping it around our studio space providing a secondary facade service which appears from the street like a roof treatment.
Looking at the collaborate siding on Lee Avenue houses, we bring that over to cover the gabled roof facade portion of our building. We looked at the brick on Witherspoon at our Witherspoon neighbor and brought that into the lower level of our
building. And here you see all the materials from the context brought into the building. One of the elements that the Secretary of Interior standards for historic places advocates for when adding to historic structures is the use of a
hyphen connector, a glass separator to define the buildings clearly as historic versus the new structure of today. Here you see that connector in place. As I mentioned, we hope to make this structure a model for sustainability. We
are hoping to reach net zero energy incorporating a green roof, geothermal heating and cooling, solar panels, porest pavement, bicycle parking, EV charging, and all the lighting will be le LED and we had planned for it to be 3000K. We
will certainly um review with historic if they want it to be 2700. Um but that's something that we hadn't considered until we got that report. Um, one of the concerns of the sustainability goals would be the view
of the solar panels. We have set the panels back on the roof so they will not be seen from Lee Avenue. The panels are angled south as shown on the drawings or from across the street on Witherspoon Street. The panels will be out of view. HBC asked us to pull the overhang back
which had previously aligned with the porch. We pulled it back a foot and a half. um 18 inches. Uh this is as far back as we could pull it back and still screen those solar panels. The spacing of the houses along Lee Avenue varies touching each other from
touching each other to almost 12 ft apart. Here you can see the adjacent structures spacing on on Lee. The gap from our new structure to the neighboring structure will be almost 22 ft. At the HPC meeting and in some of the
reports, there were questions about the predominant street edge expressions that our overhang exceeded the predominant street edge, but the reality is that the existing and the new structure wall um are both set back by more than 12 feet from the predominant Witherspoon street
edge. In addition, the porches on the existing and the new porch are set back from the predominant porch line by almost six feet. The addition is respectfully set back from the street. Another concern from the historic point of view is how we will be maintaining
and preserving the existing structure. As mentioned, we are using synthetic slate to maintain the visual reference and the stuckle will be recoded to be closer to the original color. The only the only windows being removed are the three basement windows which are down
here. Okay, which are up against the glass connector. Um in blue you see the ground floor windows which will be blocked up. However, the original frames will be maintained on the two upper floors. The windows in green will have their sills removed to convert these to
doors maintaining the frames. The other windows on the wall we intend to keep which will allow for transfer light in from the glass hydrant. At the rear of the building you can see the new door to the new egress stair which is required
by the fire inspector. It is our hope to replace the remaining windows on the building in the future. They are shown in yellow on this drawing. These windows were replaced by a previous owner and are now vinyl windows. We hope to change them back to woodclad. We looked carefully at the question of
the corner lawn and whether it was done with intent or out of necessity. Out of necessity due to the time period with which it was built and if it is a defining feature of the historic district which we really do not believe it is. First, if we look at the
divisions of the lots along Lee, we would be able to divide this lot into three lots that fit into the vernacular lot size on Lee. If we were to take the zoning of the B1 zone, then two lots would be viable on this property.
Finally, when doing our geological investigation of the property, we discovered a large rock outcropping under the lawn on this half of the site, which would have made construction on this part of the lot in the 1920s difficult and costly, if not impossible. The location that was selected for the
original home was clearly a result of this rock outcropping. Placing a structure on the corner would have been more contextual, appropriately characteristic for that era, and viable for the original use. This would have provided a protected lawn instead of the
one on the corner. It would have also set up the ability to subdivide and add another structure in the future if it were not for the rock. We do not see the lawn as a defining feature, but rather as a happen stance that was more cost-effective solution rather than
intended and defining feature of the original design. We're on page 55 now. 55. Yes. We'll go through the requested variances so that some of the questions in the report can be addressed from here.
The existing building is 39, excuse me, is 30t 9 in and is compliant within the zoning. The new building will match the height as mentioned of the existing structure and this variance is a result of excessing the sidewalk corner which lowers the average grade on the lot. The
difference is approximately 12 in the datim of the building height and the street is maintained. So just to be clear, Josh, if the if the um the the the grading didn't change, it
would be the same height of the existing building. It would be compliant. Yes, it would be compliant. And also I just want to point out that if there was an development next to this or close by or if it had happened on this property under the affordable overlay, the height
for multifamily can go up to 45 ft 3 and 1/2 stories. So this this is the limit of what this would be allowed to be built to, but there are uses where you can go up to 45 feet in that exact zone. Yes, you'd have to be you'd have to be
doing multif family to take advantage. Multi family. Y next is the F variance. This variance is in large part um the result of the porches that we are including in the design. The porches are contextual and fit well into the
neighborhood and they add a significant amount of square footage. The next variants are a result, excuse me, the next variants are a result of this property being the first property in the township which does not technically exist anymore and the fact
that it abuts the four different zone four and the fact that it abuts four different zones and that two of these zones are residential when it is a business zone. Due to these issues, the existing house in its entirety
would be inside the required landscape buffer. The buildable area where the front half of our new structure would be would be you'd be allowed to build here. And I believe Justin noted that these these buffers were really intended for,
you know, down on 206 or an area where there was really a large commercial impact. And this is a different type of business zone here. Yeah. in in the B1 zone with the properties along that side. I know it's off the the the sheet here, but they're
all the same depth basically. So they for them to put a B none of them have a buffer, not even the one that is has a different depth, which is the Princeton packet building, but um essentially you couldn't build a 50ft buffer anywhere
along here for that back R4 zone. And um yeah, so slide 62. If we were to be in the business zone in the burrow instead of in the township, there is no requirement for this landscape buffer. And the RB
zone is a block away from this location. Um and these are the setback requirements that would be for the RB zone. And so you can see that our entire building would fit within that. Um and uh the landscape offers are are even
larger than the setbacks. The driveway variance the driveway width is really an existing condition. Our neighbors driveway and ours are connected with the gravel area which is already considered to be impervious. Um our civil engineer will
talk about this a little bit more. Um the LOI we have signed um and we intend to move forward with the new neighbor will allow space for both of us to have better maneuvering space in the parking area and drive in addition to a
shared parking spot which which we previously showed. Um and um you know we currently drive over each other's property lines all the time. that is just the reality to allow them to to maneuver out. Um, you know, it often
happens when there's a delivery or something like that and and we do the same. Um, the parking variance, please note, um, most of our staff parks at the lot across the street, which has hundreds of
available spots, which our traffic consultant will talk about um, a little bit. Uh the required parking indicates 53 spaces for our use in the B1T zone. We are providing 10 including EV and EV
ready spaces. Uh this zone was in large part designed to be for businesses at the periphery of town like on 206 which would necessitate the use of a car. Our uses are community oriented and will have many pedestrian users. If you look
at comparable zoning in the town, the RB zone down the street, we would be required to have 17, which would be a partial variance of only seven when most of our staff will be parking at the lot across the street. Um, if we were to take advantage of the affordable
overlay, the AHO7 with 10 apartments, the laundromat and retail use, um, we would be required to have five parking spaces without any EV. So effectively it is our office which is the differentiator and not the retail or the laundromat. Um and we have resolved
parking for our staff. We currently lease six spaces in the parking lot. Also um the lot also has spots paid for by the hour. Um and the lot is mostly empty. Our parking consultants will review this further. But you can actually see here on the
roof of the parking lot, um, you know, there's it's mostly empty. Um, and if you if you look at Google Maps and do the, uh, older photos, you could see in every one there's very few.
Yeah, they basically look like that. Uh, slide 69, the signage variance. Slide 70. Uh we plan to have three facade signs for the three different occupants. The signage variance is
required for the signs um because we're putting sign on a basement level for the laundromat. Um as each first floor use is permitted to have its own signage. Um it will it
the laundromat will have grade access. So it acts in the same way the first floor would. Um the signage will be a reverse halo lit so as not to spread light out but rather just allow highlight of the edges of the signs.
The front yard setback the wall varants as we mentioned before we'll have an accessible path that does not require railings um and is not a ramp. on slide 73. Uh the challenge is that
the landing of this surface at the first floor will require support and a wall. It is this wall that is within the setback. The front of this surface aligns with the predominant porch line we previously discussed. We are leveraging this space to support our
sustainability goals by providing covered bark covered bike storage. um at this location underneath right there. Um we have separate bike storage for our staff at the back of the building and open bike storage um next to the building as well.
So to just be clear, our front yard setback is not the building but to the retaining wall and that's why we're triggering the variance. It's it's this little area here. Okay, I just want to make sure. And that's slide 73, right?
So slide 74 from above you can see the overall context. One thing to note again is the large number of empty parking spaces in the parking lot. Our parking consultant will review that further. Here you see it with the new structure and the relationship to the parking lot
which is only a block and a half away. Looking at the site from above the corner as it currently exists. We're on slide 76 and 77 and with the new addition is 77. Here you see the existing site looking
down Witherspoon Street. On slide 79 you see it with the addition. Here's the existing from across Witherspoon Street. And on slide 81, this image is the image that we presented to HPC. Um and there are
several items that were noted. The rendering did not properly illustrate um the building as intended. The second floor windows um are double hung windows, but they appear to be fixed in black in color in the image and did not show this condition properly. The clear
story glazing um also showed through as dark shadow glass as if no light were entering and the overhang was seen as too coming out too far as illustrated. and also the railing on the front was considered too high.
So we've made some changes. Um we have revised the design and corrected the image. Uh you can see the second floor windows are now white and they are double hung as requested by HBC. The clear story windows are are not a field of black but rather do allow light in
which provides relief from the Witherspoon Street form. You can also see the shift back of the candle lever. We show the existing structure as it currently stands, but please note that when the project is finished, we will no longer need window air conditioning
units. Um, we will be keeping the rails at their existing heights as requested by HBC. And you can also see here the historic plaque which is right here. Um, which we'll be installing to acknowledge the history of the Taylor family and the building.
And this is slide 82. Um, because you Well, this was slide this is slide 82. Oh, I'm sorry. So, now slide 83 is the view looking down Lee Avenue. And with the new addition, you can see the gable roof form on the addition, you
know, which which is here. And that mimics the gable roof forms that run down Lee. Um, and the studio step back from the street. So, our studio is set back there. Okay. You can also see uh the raised garden walls that are here that
run down. Um, you can see them. They they run all the way down. Lee, so they're on every one of the properties going all the way down. Here's a closer view. Josh, are you going to address the uh comment in the planners report or is that somebody else about the wall?
I'm about to mention it. Okay. Okay. Slide 88. Here you see a closer view from across the street on Lee Avenue. Uh the existing structure uh cannot be seen from Lee until you are directly across the street. So, if you were down here, you can see see the
upper part of it from above the hedges. Okay? But you really can't see the the whole structure. Um, and then here you see it with the new addition uh the street tree and the tree on the corner of the property. So, this tree here, you see the top of it up here
that does is actually on the corner of the property. We are maintaining that. We are not getting rid of it. Um and uh and then just because it's hard to see our building behind all those trees. Um we sort of down we toned it off with some transparency. Uh you can see the
planters along Lee, okay, which are that we're proposing here. And we're aligning with the the planters that that planter wall that's running down Lee. Um and we can move them back and if the town wants us to move them back, then we will. Um but we do think that aligning with the
contextual wall that runs down Lee um is a better design solution and stepping it back um you know then stepping it back um and we recognize that this is a right of way agreement but contextually this wall exists and that's why we're
aligning it with that spot. Um, you know, and the green planters again set us up to have trees as mentioned by the landscape architect earlier, um, that will grow up and not have to be damaged by the by PSNG and the electric lines.
Slide 88. As I mentioned, we engaged Hunter Research to do a historic report on the property and took and and to take a close look at our proposal. A copy of the report was provided to you. Slide 89. In looking at the design approach, we believe this project is
consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for historic places. With regard to the existing structure, we rem we remove no distinctive features from the contributing structure. We are replacing the roof and repairing the and painting the Stuckco, the rotted trim,
and the porch elements matching the existing conditions. We plan to replace the windows to match the original windows in the future. We'll be acknowledging Taylor and family and their history of the Colonial Revival building with a plaque on the property.
With regard to the addition, the glass hyphen separates the addition from the contributing structure. The materials used are sympathetic to the existing building and context. The massing of the building echoes its surrounding context without creating a false sense of
history. And finally, if the addition were to be removed in the future, the original structure can easily be restored. Slide 90. We believe this proposal will promote community oriented tenants in the laundromat, our office, and our future occupant as well. The addition
fits well and is respectful of the Witherspoon Jackson Historic District and complies with the Secretary of Interior's guidelines for historic places. The height, proportion, solid void relationships, scale of the proposed addition are all visually
compatible with the existing structure and neighborhood. The relationship of the materials, texture, and color of the facade and roof are are also visually compatible with the historic district and enrich the visual landscape. It does not adversely affect the character or
appearance of the district or the relationships among the structures. It does not adversely affect the exterior architectural features or character of the contributing structure or the neighborhood. History does not stop. We are
continually making making it. The buildings in our town reflect that history and are markers for how things change. Our town's landscape is a quilt of that history. We strive in all of our projects to be sensitive and respectful to that history, the neighborhood, and
town. This project is appropriate to the scale, materiality, and site, and is respectful of the past while not creating a false sense of history. In conclusion, we believe the project to be sensitive to the historic car
character of the contributing structure will support the well-being of the neighborhood and the historic district. It promotes the conservation of contributing structure within the historic district, engages sustainable practice and practices and resources. It is appropriately scaled for the property
and incorporates the best features of design to create a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques. I will now turn it over to our civil engineer. So,
excuse me one excuse me one second. Um, do you I just want to know if the board members have any questions of Mr. in there. I have one question. One question. Um, real simple one. Um, you said you're
going to um put a suppression system in the laundromat. Yes. Sprinkler system. And the the um fire official memo said recommended suppression the whole building.
You're not doing that? No. Well, if budget allows for it, we would we would definitely look to do that. Um but our understanding of the the the memo was that the laundromat was the risk.
And honestly, we were planning to do that even before we got the memo. um as it is uh good practice um for laundromats to have sprinkler system um and the square footage of the rest of the building doesn't require that we have have a sprinkler system um you know
it is a large budgetary item um if we can avoid it financially it would be better um yeah you know I and I hear what you're saying you said your understanding of the memo Mr. De Moore is here. Maybe does the board want to hear from him to clarify
that? Yes. Well, yeah, but the memo says suppressant system throughout the building. Okay, that Michael's question was the same as mine, but I think I'd like to hear from the fire official. Yeah.
And you still here? I can't I can't see because this the uh the slide presentation is open. Okay. Oh,
like he's here. Doesn't look like he's here. Okay. Well, he's he's not here, so we can't ask him the question, but we will have to get I think at some point we will want to get a comment from him on this and we can we can certainly review it
with him. Um the challenge would be running the sprinkler through the existing structure um would have um significant impacts on the on the structure. So um but we can certainly review that with him and and well we can review it with him.
Yeah. Um, fine. That's that's that's fine. You know, it my reading of it, it didn't say the existing building. I I took it as meaning the new building that has and that might be a possibility as well.
So, yeah. But yeah, I mean I I agree with Michael with the three separate uses in there, especially the laundromat and then just a minor item, but looking at the exiting out of the addition on the second floor,
it again minor uh code issue. I don't know if it it has the remoteness issue. The stair has the remoteness issue that would be required, but you'll figure that one out. Okay. Yeah, we we've reviewed that. It should be fine. Um, but we will definitely have to resolve
that before we submit for permit no matter what. Okay. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Zinder? Okay. Let's move ahead. Thank you for your presentation. Very nice. I had two questions. Yes. Oh, go ahead, please. Um, and I'm I
wouldn't be surprised if you answered this earlier, but I if um if you could just tell me again, are your offices, which are now in the um in the house that you're working out of, are they are you going to be expanding or moving? How
where how how will things change when as far as your offices in the we will no longer be occupying the basement or the first floor of the existing structure. Um the basement will be um converted for utility for the the property and the first floor will become
um some sort of retail establishment for the community. you you'll continue to use the top floor and then the connection to space in the new building. Um that and the mezzanine. Yes.
And the I guess is it is it the half floor above? Is that an attic? There's an attic level above that's currently that we currently occupy and the second floor which we currently occupy and that's what we're connecting into. You bring up a question. What what Dave is that? Do you have any other
questions? I I also wanted to ask about the um the the ramp and what some questions or comments had been about how that seems to be a a um a long way for someone to go. And I um I'm sure you
didn't do that on purpose or intentionally make it a I mean that's it's um it's a the civil engineer will talk about this a little bit, but it's a 1 to 20 slope. um any steeper than that, we would be required to put handrails um on front. And um
honestly, you know, my my father was wheelchair bound for a number of years before he passed away and I wanted to make this building fully accessible and that was an important part of the project for me personally. And this is I can say it's most likely not the least
expensive path, but it is the only path that would allow full accessibility to all components. railings would just add a certain degree of safety. It would be It would be terrible if we put railings on the front of the building. Yeah. Yeah. I don't And I wasn't even thinking about I
wasn't that wasn't on my mind so much as just if it sounds like this is the best most reasonable place to put it rather than I think there was an idea. Could it have been in the back? I don't know.
It's it's I don't know the exact type difference. It's roughly four feet. We have a whole bunch of stairs that we go up from the back parking lot. So, it's the same same challenge that we have in the back. Um and if we did put a ramp back there, then we would be impacting
the parking that we are having. Um you know, and there's no clean way to put a lift in back there either. Um that would allow you to get access to both structures. Thank you. One one last question on my part. Um,
what type of retail do you envision in the first floor of the existing building? Um, something that's community related. Um, I mean, a shoe store. I don't know. Uh, something that we've been missing in town. Okay. All right.
Shoe store. I mean, I think that's the that's the goal. Um, and and it's certainly not to have a food related um element here. Yeah. I agree. The size, the size and location really adds to like those service type, you know, whether it's a someone cutting
hair or shoe store or something, you know, some small retail. I mean, that was sort of the idea to help um you know, um give a a different size or a kind of a diversity to some of the the uh retail stores that you have down
there, which and I will say I will say it would be wonderful to get an entrepreneur from the neighborhood who's interested in putting something in. Um you know, that's that's sort of the the goal of so much of this building is to make it a neighborhood component.
Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Zinder? Okay, let's keep going. Civil engineer. Okay, our next witness is Kelly Osuch. Kelly, um we you have to be sworn in and then we can go through your credentials.
Okay. I don't I can't see him on the screen because you've got the um the slides up, but Mr. As there he is. Very good. Do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you.
Can you tell us a little bit about your education and credentials? Sure. I have a bachelor of science in civil engineering from Virginia Tech. I graduated in 2012. Uh since then, I've been practicing civil engineering in the state of New Jersey. Uh designing and providing
testimony on similar developments uh to what's being proposed here. Uh I have a professional engineering license within the state in good standing. Uh, and I've, as I've kind of noted, I've testified before various zoning, planning, and land use boards throughout
the state. In addition to a license in New Jersey, I also have a professional engineering license in Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. And while I won't be giving planning testimony, I also have a professional planning license in the state of New Jersey as well.
Okay. Thank you. I we will recognize Mr. Ouch as a an expert in his field. Thank you. Okay. So, we're going to continue with the um same A1 um exhibit. We are on slide
other other screen, Josh. Oh, yeah. We're we're That's a preview of what's coming up. Um so, we are on I believe we're on slide um 91. Yep. There we go. Yes. Okay. You can go to the next slide,
Josh. All right, sheet 92. So, uh, I'd like to introduce the existing conditions of the property. Uh, properties known as block 6907, lot 17 on the tax maps. Uh, the image shown here is the existing
conditions plan, which locates the property within the the municipality. Uh, the property is a 0.224 224 acre property or 9,760 square ft. Uh it's a rather square
property if you're looking at it. It's generally uh square. Uh property is located within the B1 business district. Um and this property is relatively unique in the zoning perspective in that
it's located adjacent to multiple different zones. Uh it is right at the border of what was previously the burrow. So to the south is uh the burrow and lot 56 which is the
shared property or shared driveway access that was talked about uh previously that would have been within the burrow. This property would have been within the township. So it's the first property within the township. What was previously the township and I believe the burrow wraps around
it. So the property across the street was also the prior burrow. Correct. Um the the property across Witherspoon or to the east is within the MRO MRO district and
that is a multifamily development, the Avalon development. Uh properties bound to the north by Lee Avenue. Um and then along Witherspoon across is a a further business and commercial properties. Uh
and then to the east and the south are residential properties um within the or uh so the property is accessed via a driveway off of Witherspoon Street along the southern property boundary which was
discussed previously. Um that driveway opening has a shared curb cut along Witherspoon with the neighboring property. Um and along the the southern property line, there is a gravel strip that straddles between the two
properties and has effectively been operating as one driveway between the two properties um in the past. property contains a 2 and a half story office building. The building height as measured per the ordinance is 30.58 ft.
Uh which we've noted is existing non-conforming because the zone the B1 zone allows a 30 foot max. Uh the rear in the rear of the property or the eastern portion of the property uh there is an existing nine stall parking lot. Um it's worth noting that
while there are nine parking stalls there, they are all substandard from current code. Um the width of the entire aisle and parking length is 29 ft and it's really a 16 foot wide aisle and a
13t wide parking stall length um which doesn't meet standards. There's also no ADA parking in the rear. Um, which is also doesn't meet code. Uh, the parking area is surrounded by a
railroad tie curb which uh generally follows around and that limits kind of that parking area down to that 16 foot wide aisle that I mentioned. Uh the property contains a um lawn area
along the northern portion of the property that uh ties into the corner of both Lee and Witherspoon. Um and then the uh along the eastern boundary beyond the parking lot, there's
an existing wooden fence along the property boundary with the residential property. Uh and then lastly, as far as landscaping goes, there's a hedge row along Leav and Witherspoon that kind of
uh bookends the property and uh ties the corner together. Uh the the image shown also notes there's a green flag as we're having it of the tree that was missing from the original survey. Uh Josh
mentioned we will locate that and uh the intent is to maintain that tree through construction and not remove it. Uh so as far as like elevations on the property, the property is kind of perched up off
of both Witherspoon and Leav. So, it's low at sidewalk elevation and then there's a very steep grade uh right along the property line, right along those hedge rows that come up to a perched relatively level elevation.
Um, and then once you get up to that elevation, the site's up at approximately 172. Um, and then again kind of drains back out towards Lee and Witherspoon where the low spot is right at that corner where the ADA ramp is proposed and that
elevation's down at 165 and a half plus or minus. Uh, and then the property is served by public utilities water, sewer, gas, and electric. Uh, this was sheet 92. You can go to
sheet 93. Uh and sheet 93 is illustrating the proposed demolition. Um so a portion of the parking area in the rear that is hatched with a sl uh
diagonal lines through it is proposed to be removed for the construction. The railroad tie curb around the entire parking area is proposed to be removed. And then the hedge row that we noted along Lee and Witherspoon would be
removed along with two um individual trees. Uh and then lastly, the or uh the stairway and um concrete walk that ties the existing porch of the property would
have to be relocated uh as I'll get into with the accessible path that is being proposed. You can go to the next sheet, Josh. So, the proposed site plan, this is uh
slide 94. Um, the applicant's proposing to construct a 2 and 1/2 story building addition. Uh, this addition will result in an F of 0.739 where 6 is the maximum allowed. So,
there is a variance being requested for the floor area ratio. Um the setbacks of the structure which Josh previously mentioned um from Witherspoon there is a proposed front yard setback of 7.42 ft um which as Josh
went into in his exhibits is really for the uh retaining wall associated with the uh ADA access path and the bike storage in the front yard. Um but the general building line is beyond the
10-ft limit and is actually at 13.33 ft from the property line. Uh the Leav front yard is compliant. It is proposed right at the 10-ft setback. And then our side and rear yard for the
building are compliant as well. Uh so the ADA access on the property uh or for the property is provided via a concrete walk that switch backs as the elevation
changes in the front. Um Mr. Zinder and I had gone through a lot of iterations of designing this ADA path in the early stages of the site design. Um, as Mr. Zinder noted, there was a
real goal of trying to avoid putting in handrails in the front here as they uh aesthetically um would take away from the structure and the streetscape. Uh so we designed this as best as we could while
maintaining the less than 5% slope along that entire path. Uh as far as doing that, there was a uh proposed or there was the existing sidewalk or
existing walkway and access point along the existing porch that has to be relocated to make the elevations of that concrete walk path work. and it is being shifted to on this
image to the left which would be to the south um a few feet. Uh in addition to the concrete walk in the in the front, there's also a proposed paver patio area along the
intersection or near the intersection with Lee and Witherspoon. This plaza area will act as the entry and gathering space for the basement floor or the laundromat area. Uh, and the ADA access to that will be
through that PA patio area from the public right away. And I think it's we'll get into the ADA parking in a minute, but I think it's worth noting that the uses on this property, as Mr. Zinder
noted, and I'm sure the planner will also get note as well, is all designed to have a lot of community interaction and community aspect. So we believe that the main pedestrian access path of the community is along Witherspoon and at
that intersection with Lee. So, we believe that this these concrete walks and the access path are located in the right location to provide the community from the public right away the access into the property while also allowing
for the ADA stall in the in the rear with the parking to utilize that ADA path as well. Um and so as we get into parking, um there are six physical parking stalls
proposed as part of this project. Uh and they are located in the rear or the eastern portion of the prop uh property. Um there are four stalls that we will have as make ready EV stalls. Uh we show
two pedestals and each pedestal would in theory have two connections. So there would be four stalls. Uh we show or we're proposing one ADA van accessible stall. Uh and then one stall would be a compact or a a short
stall. All of the parking stalls will have an 18 ft length which if you heard the existing property or the existing conditions are all 13 foot long. So, it it's a significant increase in getting these closer to being
compliant. Um, but the aisle will still be 16 1/2 ft. So, it's a little bit larger than the aisle that's currently there, but it is still substandard. Um so for a matter of parking requirements due to having four make
ready EV stalls we technically provide 10 stalls as far as the parking requirement goes as far with the credits the state statute provides but again there's only six physical stalls being uh proposed on the property with one
straddling along the property line uh that would share access with uh the neighboring property. which is subject to that agreement with the neighbor. Um, as Mr. Zinder noted that the uses
require 53 parking stalls. So, we are asking for a variance from the number of parking provided. Um, and there were some comments and questions as to the location of the ADA stall. Um, so we believe the location
provided is the most efficient location as far as the site design goes and the site grading. Um, it also allows for folks that utilize that um that stall that may not be wheelchair bound to
access the rear of the the covered porch via the stairs right next to the property while also still providing the accessible path. uh to the the frontage and then al ultimately into the public right away which then they can um
access that concrete walk and the paver patio plaza area to enter into the various floors of the structure uh providing that ADA access compliance that's required. Um, so again, we think it's the right
location, but um, if if there was comments from the board's professionals or the town's professionals, uh, I'm sure we could work with them on why we were locating where we are. Additionally, there was a
comment, I think it was in the, um, traffic engineers report, um, and he had a question as to the width of the ADA stall. Um, we're proposing it at 11 ft wide with a 5- foot um,
access aisle, which is directly out of the ADA code um, for the van accessible stalls. Um, so in addition to the parking, Mr. Zinder also noted the um, retaining
walls or the planting area walls along Leav. Again, they are located within the public right away and again it was intentional to line up aesthetically with the neighboring wall. Uh so we
understand that we would have to get um approval from municipal council and I think the the design intent is to tie in with the neighboring but if for some reason the municipality does not like it uh we would certainly agree to move that
wall back into the property. um and adjust the sidewalk accordingly based on the staff's recommendation. Um and then likewise along the Witherspoon access there is a uh planter and seat wall that is also proposed
within the right away. And again, that's kind of a community um community amenity, we'll call it, where people gathering outside of the laundromat can sit and wait for their laundry to um be prepared and cleaned.
Uh so again, it's within the right of way. We know we have to get approval from the municipal uh council, but we believe it's uh the right location for it. Uh you go to the next sheet, Josh. Okay, so the grading plan. Uh, so as I
mentioned, just real quick, um, on that last one where we we're talking about the planters, the two benefits that we looked at was one, it lines up with the rest of the street. And the other benefit is that it gives us with that extra space, we're allowed to have more
plantings there, right? Or just more a little bit more room for plantings. That's correct. But we could if the if the staff um and the board determines that they want it pulled back, we could certainly pull it back. Correct. It just won't it won't line up with the
rest of the street and the it will just have a little less room to do the plantings. Yes. Uh one one thing I did forget to mention actually on this sheet is there is a proposed trash enclosure area in the rear of the property that would be
fenced in. Uh, and I think it was a question in the the traffic engineers report. The the intent is for those totes to be wheeled down on trash day. There's no trash truck being proposed to drive into the property to access that area.
And that's currently how it's done today. Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay. So, the grading plan. So, I I the proposed grading uh in the rear of the property in the parking area generally mimics the existing grading.
The real changes in the elevations are um at the plaza area where uh as I noted in the existing condition, there was a large drop off along that hedge row. So, we're utilizing that to our advantage um
and cutting in, for lack of a better term, into the side of the hill to access that basement elevation with the laundromat. Uh so, the laundromat's access point will be generally at that 165 and a half low elevation that I
mentioned at the intersection. Um and then the rest of the property uh is raised up matching the existing elevations for the most part. Uh the grading of the the ramp as I went through has been designed sorry not as a
ramp concrete walk has been designed to avoid being a ramp by staying under 5% at all locations. Um and then an accessible path from the ADA stall is delineated on the grading plan here and we can certainly provide
it to the engineer as well and others. Um, again, we think that the location of the ADA stall as far as providing the ADA accessible path and working with some of the constraints on the property is the appropriate location. Um and in
addition to that and with the um maneuverability and the location of the accessible path going through the neighbors, there is a proposed placard sign that's going to be proposed along the edge of the ADA stall which
illustrates to anybody parking there how to uh maneuver the the accessible path to the public right away and then ultimately into the the structure. And that that location um we picked also because of the length of the path as
well. We we allow it to have less of a a slope coming from that direction rather than straight down. That That's correct. It it lengthened the length of the path which lowered the slope, namely along the the stem of the driveway where it starts to get steeper.
Okay. So there's going to be a short wall there or something to different differentiate the pedestrian path from the vehicular path there. There would be no wall. The the pedestrian path would utilize the um
paving path or the drivable path. It's just a uh an area of cross use. No problem. Thank you. Yep. Uh so the drainage plan um the proposed change in imperous coverage
exceeds the 400 square foot threshold. Um and therefore you know we have to comply with the small project storm water management ordinance. Uh to do that the applicant's proposing a green infrastructure device via porous pavement in the rear. So those six
parking stalls that we were talking about in the rear would be porous pavement. Um they're designed to detain and infiltrate storm water associated with the roof area as well as some of the the direct sheet runoff from the asphalt
parking area. Um there was a comment or a question within the engineers memo about uh providing pre-treatment via leaf screens for the roof uh drains and we would certainly comply with that as it's a requirement within the BMP manual for
the state. Um and uh lastly, any overflow of the storm water is directed back out to Witherspoon and would tie into the inlet
along Witherspoon Street. Um and any maintenance manual for that uh porous pavement system would be provided as a condition of any approval. uh and we would certainly work with the municipalities professional to make sure we meet their satisfa satisfaction on
the maintenance manual. Uh so the utility plan uh similar to what's existing uh the proposed condition will also be served by water public water sewer gas and electric. Uh
the proposed water demand is increased up to 11,000 or a little more than 11,000 gallons per day. Uh, and the sewer demand per the state code would be close to 12,500 gallons per day for the office, retail, and laundromat uses.
You can go to the next sheet, Josh. Uh, the lighting plan. So, applicants purposefully with the neighbors being residential is proposing a minimal exterior lighting plan, just enough to light the parking area. Uh, and they're
doing that via one polemounted light in the rear that's mounted at 8 ft. That pole is directly next to the ADA stall. Um, there was a comment about some of the light is under the 2 foot candle
requirement. So, we will adjust the lighting plan a little bit to meet that. 2 foot candle requirement within that parking area. Uh so in addition to the parking area lighting, there are two building mounted lights proposed
uh at the egress points of the um laundromat. Uh and they are also mounted at 8 ft above ground. Uh and they are also LED lights. Uh and then lastly along that concrete path or
walking path, there's lowlying downward-facing area lighting to light that path during um the winter months for the path in uh for anybody accessing the property via
the the walk system. Uh and those mounted lights are at 2 feet high uh and then downward facing. But now we're going to switch to uh our traffic consultant
board members. Any questions of the engineer? Excuse me, Josh. Any question of the uh civil engineer before we move over? I mean, we'll have the opportunity to ask questions later. Okay. And excuse me, board members,
anybody want to take a break right now? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Can we do five minutes? Um, Steve, if that's okay. Yes, five minutes is fine. It is uh 9:50. We'll we'll stop. We'll rejoin 955. Thank you.
Thank you. Hi guys. Okay. Uh, as soon as we get Harlon and Bernice and Eve back, we're ready to go. Hi, Eve. Hi, Horland. Just wait for Bernice for a minute here. Well, we have Well, we should wait for
Bernice. We could have George sworn in. Yeah, why don't we do that? So, our next witness is George Jakamar, our traffic consultant, and um he has not been sworn in yet.
Mr. Jacar. Whoa. Let me see. There you are. I'm so sorry. Do you swear Do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you.
Just to speed things up a little bit, I think uh we will accept Mr. Jack Moore as an expert witness since he's testified before us many many times. We appreciate that. No problem. Thank you. You're welcome.
The next slide. Uh we are we waiting for somebody should we wait? Um Oh, she's here. Okay, let's continue. So, we're starting uh exhibit A1. We're on slide 99, I believe. 99.
Yes. All right. Yep. Thank you very much and good evening uh members of zoning board. Um I will talk a little bit about the parking spaces and the maneuvering in and out of
the uh six parking spaces that are shown here on this drawing. and then I'll talk about traffic impact and then parking in general uh in in the surrounding uh neighborhood. Here you can see the maneuver of um handicapped van. You can
see it's a van that's over 17 ft 17.2 ft length that's driving in. That's the blue line is the forward move maneuver and how that vehicle drives in, you know, using the access area, that 5-ft cross-hatched area that's next to the
space, you know, to get into the parking space. And then in red, you can see the reverse maneuver to get out of the space and how that vehicle can then exit back out onto Witherspoon Street knows first, which obviously is very important. they
don't have to back out onto the street. The next slide um is slide number 100 shows a similar maneuver for a regular standard car um into a standard space. That's the the
third uh space from the right or third space from the left. And um you can see the same kind of maneuver that vehicle can back uh onto uh back uh out of the space and then maneuver out. And these
drawings they can show they show you that this can happen without the use of the shared space and the shared driveway next door. So it's a kind of a worstc case analysis that we're showing if we were not to get that easement from the
neighboring property. The next slide shows the same I think arrangement for the compact space. That's the the compact space is a slightly narrow space and you can see the compact car moving out of that space and also driving out
forward. The only other point I want to mention here if the easement the shared easement could not occur here the neighbor would have to back out onto wither street. the neighbor does not, you know, can only maneuver forwards
onto wither spoot by using the space of this property. So that's for the parking maneuvering. Um, and as was mentioned before, it it is substandard, but it is better than what it is today. The distance that the vehicles have to get
in and out is slightly better than what exists today. The next slide summarizes the traffic generation for the proposed project. So these are the additional vehicle trips that would
be generated by this project. In the morning peak hours, we estimate 11 vehicle trips. In the afternoon peak hour, 22 vehicle trips. Saturday peak hour, 18 vehicle trips. Uh we got a comment from your traffic consultant uh
indicating that maybe we were too low for Saturday traffic for the um laundromat. I think if we were to increase the laundromat traffic by 25% it would still be less than the 22 would be 21 vehicles instead of 18 vehicles in
this peak hour. Um but we are in a range that is generally considered you know very low traffic generation. In addition you know not all of these trips will end on the site. Some of them will end at the parking garage across the street and we'll talk about that a little bit more
later and some of them may end on uh the the street itself parking on the street. We developed these uh estimates based on it traffic generation data. I think you all heard about that in the past. and we apply the um model splits that we get
from the census. So for instance for the office employees we use the model split of 13.1% for walking biking and transit. So that's based on the census information that we get for people that work in this particular uh census track.
For the longer med retail, we reduce the traffic generation by 40%. And that's the the the percentage given by the census track for people that live in this neighborhood. For when they commute to work, they would use the various u uh
alternatives to the automobile. In fact, the census would show 44%. We used 40% reduction in this case. The next slide is slide number 103.
It's hidden behind my screen. Yeah, I can't see it. 103. 103. Thank you. Um, shows the parking demand estimate. So, this is a demand that we made again based on it parking standards uh parking
uh ratios uh independently of what the zoning says. You know, you are in this zoning district that's close to another zoning district. There's all these zoning assumptions that you heard of what would be my best estimate for the actual parking demand for this particular site. So yeah there you can
see for the office what the um what that would be uh given the square footage for the retail and for the laundromat we estimate a total of 16.6 i.e 17 parking spaces. That would be my best estimate,
you know, in terms of the parking demand that's actually generated uh in this area. Again, taking into consideration the kind of modal split that we have in this area, the 13.1% for the office employees
and the 40% uh for the retail and laundromat uh patrons. Um I I should add you know that is these percentages are based on census for this very wide census track that Princeton
municipality is located in. Um there's another reality to this and that is the fact that um we will not provide any parking on the site for laundromat patrons or retail painters. the the six
spaces that are on the site will be reserved for the architecture office and there will be a sign that says parking reserved exclusively for the architecture office the Joshua Zinda architect and designers and the reason for that is we do not
want to give the impression that the laundromat patrons can drive back there and park you know because there is only limited number of parking spaces and there could be moments where you have more laundromat patrons and then wanted and also because it is it is relatively
tight parking. So it is something that you know people that work there and then know the parking lot that are used to the parking lot that drive in and out on an on a daily basis they will maneuver relatively well in there. But people that don't know it are not going to be
you know uh maneuvering well. will be more complicated more complication than it's worth given the relatively small number of parking spaces that are in the bag. That is an an assumption that we make and we do that on the basis that the we believe
that in fact for the people going to the laundromat and the retail space at this location the percentage of people walking and bicycling will be higher than 40% and I think personally significantly higher given the nature of the neighborhood given the improvement
that the municipality did along with the spoon over the last two or three years subst substantially improving pedestrian circulation, improving the ADA uh compatibility. You know, there's even ADA parking spaces, the the pedestrian
crossings, the rams and all of that, you know, that does represent a significant improvement and makes this very pedestrian friendly. And in addition, as you could see from the survey that was done earlier, the people that go to the laundromats, they are very much oriented. you know they are very much
pedestrian and bicyclists uh going to and from the laundromat. So we feel that this laundromat will be very successful even though it does not have any parking on site for the laundromat patients because the the the people will walk
there. Even the people that are in the apartment building across the street Avalon, they will probably use this laundromat to some degree even though they I'm sure they have mat in the basement because here you can drop your laundry in the morning. Um, and then you go back
and pick it up in the evening. It will be dried and and folded. So, you get an a service that you don't necessarily have in the Avalon building itself. But they they have washer and dryers in their units. That's that's not accurate
statement. I don't know if all of them have washer and dryers in their units. I don't know that. Um, but still they get the they get it folded here. they can drop it off. What we're saying is some of them will use it. Obviously, there may not be a lot. I
don't know exactly how many units have their own washer and dryers in there. I I I don't know that. Um but the next slide just to finish the discussion on parking there is before I get into this,
this is the Avalon garage. We also did a survey of the on street parking using the um mapping aerial mapping uh applications that are available Google Earth and EM map and there we identified that um obviously over the last few
years the number of on street spaces in the area like a th00and ft north and southern thousand ft south of our site has decreased as the the the street was redesigned. But we do have still in the last year 2024 we had 15 spaces that
were vacant and we had 16 spaces that were vacant on the two uh aerial photos that we could see. So there's some on street parking available. The fact that it is meed obviously generates turnover that will help here. And then in the
Avalon garage when when we prepared this report we did get a number of surveys that were done by the employees of Joshua Zindo. They went in and counted the car and the vacant spaces. That particular garage has a total of 691
spaces roughly 700 parking spaces. And every count that was done here, you can see, you know, different times of the day, different days had more than 400 vacant spaces, you know, up to 5005. And those parking spaces are available
on an hourly basis. They're available on an uh monthly permit basis. Um so they there is substantial vacant parking capacity very in very close proximity to
this site. So we feel and we as you heard earlier the Joshua Zena office is using that parking for some of their employees. They pay on a monthly basis a number of permits uh for their employees. And that's something that I
imagine all the employees that work here uh except for the ones that park on site in the six spaces will park. You know, the employees of the laundromat, the employee of the retail store, if they do drive, they would probably park in that
avalon garage. The the laundromat patrons may park there. um they may park on street and then you know if it's a c a question of somebody driving to the laundromat they may continue to drive to the laundromat that's in the shopping
center today the laundromat in the shopping center is very automobile friendly you know has free parking fairly large parking areas so that you know there's going to be a certain distribution of the ronat patrons based
on their modal split based on where they live and um and how they uh move to the laundromat. So I think in this case we feel that this is a very comfortable situation in terms of parking because of
that huge supply of parking spaces across the street vacant spaces and because of the alternative you know for somebody who does insist on driving and wants to have a free parking space the and they don't find it on the streets
they will find it at the uh Princeton shopping center. So that's our conclusion in terms of the um the parking situation. We feel it can work very well uh with the more limited spaces on the site given the overall
conditions in the neighborhood, the very pedestrian oriented neighborhood that we have here. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I have one question. the uh t the the um people who will use the laundromat or
the retail will have no access to the free access to the garage. Is that the case? That that's correct. Yes. Unless they're there for 15 minutes. There's a 15 minute window and I think
uh I think the rates we showed a little while ago then there's an hour rate and then if somebody's an employee um like Zinder does they would just buy the monthly or yearly permit um so that you would have you would be paying for
that for the employees. Chris, did you say you showed the rates? Yes. I must have missed that slide. There was a slide previous Oh, it was there. I saw it. Yeah. Okay. But I had a question if I may. S Mr. Chairman, uh, two of them actually.
Um, when Josh, when your staff went to do sort of a count of the empty spaces? Yes. Did they speak with the Avalon folks to find out how many of those might have been monthly rentals that were occupied at that time or was it just an eyeball
kind of thing? No, we we we we did not talk to um Avalon about how many of them are monthly rentals. And also uh to be clear, a certain number of them are used by uh 277 and 281, the other two prop
the other two buildings that are on that property. And there is an allocation for the offices and the restaurants there. And um when we you know did these surveys, we did them during the day and in the evening. Um and I mean I've
walked through that garage multiple times and it's always empty. Um but we did not ask um Avalon um you know what their allocation is. Then then the other question is we're spending a lot of time focusing on the
use of a laundromat. Um, but you're not wanting the zoning board to restrict that space to only being able to be used as a laundromat from this point forward, are you? That's a very good question, Harlon. I was going to ask that. So,
so, sure. To be clear, we are applying for it to be a laundromat. That is what we are submitting for. If we have to change the use, I would expect that depending on what use it is and depending on um the zoning officer's interpretation of that use, we may have
to come back. But that is not what we plan. As I said, we have an LOI from one laundromat. We have two others that have strongly expressed interest. Um and there's another person laundromat that was walking around town that dropped me
an email just the other day. So, um, that is the goal, that is the need, that is what, as I mentioned, I watch these people walking by our office every day. Every day. And, um, and that is the goal for this. I have
Mr. Mr. Zinder, you're saying that this would you would have no issue if the board made that a condition of approval? I would have no condition if they made that a condition of approval. Okay. Just Marlin, just as an aside, I've been in that garage at different times during
the day and and there are plenty of faces in there. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. You're welcome. Board members, any other questions of Mr. Jacqu M? Yes. Um I do.
Yes, please. Um I guess one is I almost want them to convince me on the retail space on your first slide the 40% credit. Um
I guess how how do you come up with 40%? You don't know what the retail is. You don't know if it truly will serve the neighborhood because it could be like the first person that bought it uh
had a hair salon there. That person who like a lot of people I I knew personally, but hair salon people come with their own clients. You know, they're they're usually established splitting off. I just don't know how
you can convince us that a 40% credit on a unknown retail is is reasonable. Yeah, it's a good question. Um so just to explain the 40% and that is basically the um the ongoing survey that's done by
the federal government um in all over the United States and um it's a survey where they check on the what they what's called the home to work trip. So this is for all the people living in the this particular census tract. How do they
travel to work? That's the basic question and the responses here are that 40 it was actually 44% of the people travel to work via walking, bicycling or public transportation. So these are people that are living nearby at this
particular neighborhood that use these modes of transportation to take an act longer trip to go to work and so they don't work in the neighborhood. They work wherever people work. you know, some of them are in Princeton, some of them out in other municipalities, some
even maybe in in as far as New York City and so on. Um, and I think it's a very, and you're right, we don't know what the retail use will be, but given the surface of it, it's not going to be what what I would call destination retail,
like like a a big shop or something, you know, a fancy clothing store that attracts people from a longer area. it's too small for them. So it I consider it as an residential neighborhood retail.
And then on top of it, you know, obviously people are not going to use the the the transit system to go to the uh to this particular retail destination. Those that go from home to work via bus or uh will most probably
walk to this retail store. So I feel very comfortable using the 40% even though we don't know exactly what will be in there given the data the statistics do we have for people living in that neighborhood when they commute to work on a trip that's much much
longer than this uh trip to the laundromat and that particular retail. Okay. Thanks for trying. It's, you know, it's based on years and years and years of experience looking at
all these different uses. And um, you know, though I I honestly I feel very comfortable with that number. And again, as I said earlier, you know, when you look at people that may drive, I'm thinking of the laundromat may drive to the or want to drive to the laundromat,
they may decide, even people living in this neighborhood, they'll decide that they drive to the laundromat that's in the Princeton shopping center. There they have free parking. Yeah, I I absolutely agree with you on that as a a possibility for people because
yeah, parking in this neighborhood on the on the side streets, the nonwitherpoon street is tight as and right it's it's really tight and the neighbors
themselves are, you know, they're under great pressure. I um I was I was on the parking permit task force that the town had a few years ago. So I I I know I looked at it. Yeah. Um
could I just suggest another place that people might maybe um um maybe you're not aware of the parking. I I'm sure Michael I know you know about the parking that's by 400 Witherspoon. I I think it'd be more likely that people would go there first
if they wanted free parking rather than all the way over to the shopping center. No, that's your opinion. I' I'd drive to I would drive to the shopping center as opposed to walk from 400 with a spoon up to here.
Yeah, that that makes now um but might be possible. Remember there's also a side here, you know, and people sometimes you talk about induce travel, you know, you
probably have heard if some if we widen the road somewhere in a congested area, you're going to induce more traffic immediately. And it's true with parking, too. And so if you were to provide, let's say, 20 parking, free parking spaces, of course, there will be plenty
of cars coming in and and parking here. And this is not the kind of neighborhood um where you want to encourage that uh kind of behavior. I think Princeton in general is is, you know, shifting to encouraging more walking and bicycling.
Uh and that's why on street parking here is meled and people have to pay for it. Um I I realize it's it's not an simple issue and I I know about the parking occupancies in all the side streets here. That's correct. Um but we feel you
know and I think the fact that we have applicants the applicant here has companies that are ready to move in shows that they feel that there's a market a walk-in and bicycling market here that will make this laundromat a success.
I have a quick question, Steve. Yes, please. Josh, how many employees do you have? Yeah. Um, currently, um, we have I think uh, 13 full-time equivalents. We have a
number of part-time people that that um, but I think we have 13. Um, you know, we've had as many as 18 over the years. Um, do you expect to grow at all? I mean, this plan this plan anticipates us growing a little bit. Yes. I think it
covers up to about 20 20 architects or or I should say employees working in the building. And do you have a contract with the Avalon garage for them to park in? Yes, we do. Thank you. Any other questions?
Yeah. What? Please on on park on parking and Avalon and um did do you have the agreement with Avalon with a specific person and
I'll get to my next point. I I don't know what you mean by specific person. They have they have a I mean we contacted them. We have, I think, six spots there right now. And if we want to add a spot, which we've added and
subtracted over the years, um we call them up and they add and subtract as we need. Okay. Let me um let me go to the real the real question because um you you may know you may not your attorney may know you you may not
regarding here's a condition that was put on the garage way back when before the apartments were when the apartments were approved and the garage were
parking spaces shall not be used by developers of any new development in the municipality to satisfy their offtrack parking requirement unless agreed to by the
planning board and the garage owner and subject to easement rights on lot 15. I don't know if you're aware of that. It's you can deal with it, but I mean I'm not aware of that, but um you
know and and and I got that from Derek just just so you know. Yeah. I to me I I read that as satisfying the parking requirement in the sense of getting an offsite dedicated area. We're not saying that.
We're requesting a variance that does not support parking. So what we're saying is though people that we'll have predominantly people walking and biking but the people that are going to drive to any of the businesses in the area
would be using that area as the you know because there's a public parking garage that's gigantic and empty half empty all the time. Let me let me read it one more time because I want to make sure you know at least hear what I what I say. Yeah.
The parking spaces shall not be used by developers of any new development in the municipality to satisfy their offsite parking requirement. And then it goes unless
agreed to by the planning board the garage owner and subject to easement rights lot 15. Um, you can take it up with uh Derek or probably Justin, but I found that out today.
Yeah. But isn't that isn't that for every park every property? I mean, you know, we're asking for the variance specifically recognizing that that we have a parking shortfall. We don't necessarily think it's what's what the calculation is, but we are acknowledging
it. Um, you know, I'm just putting it out there. Like I say, you probably need to resolve it with with Derek on what's your next move if it's a problem right now. I don't know.
Well, why don't we move on to planning testimony? Is any any other I have just one last question. Um what about uh visitor parking? Are all of this all of the spots are just for employees, right? You which spots? Uh the the ones
yeah the the the six um the six spots would be for our office. It might be for visitors coming to our office um but they would be for our office. Okay. I just have one quick question. Mr. Jacman, when you talked about space number
three, you talked about a compact car. Are these is that the only compact car? Are they all compact cars? There's only one compact space. the the there was another graphic that showed the parking space with a standard car. Okay. All right. Good. Okay,
Mr. Chair, all of them meet the the the size requirements with the exception of that one space, one compact, but I'm not, you know, they're 8 foot spaces which are narrow. Um I'm just more concerned about backing out to 16 ft is pretty tight. All right, we can we can move.
Mr. Chairman, I I apologize. I did have one question regarding turning templates. Mhm. Go ahead. Um if you can go back to I believe it was slide 100 with the or maybe 99. Um for the ADA be slide 99. Thank you. Um
so the ADA space utilizes the access aisle to park into that parking space. Um, if that ADA space, right, um, if that ADA space was relocated,
um, that access aisle obviously would no longer exist up against the building there. Um, would would a vehicle be able to park up against the building in essentially up against where that the access aisle is for that ADA space?
as currently a space moves. Let's say if that moves to the left, the access aisle has to move also to the left. And then the the the vehicle that moves into that space
um will have uh yeah will have a more difficult time to get in and out because will be against the building. I'd like to chime in. The challenge is that if we did look at moving the
accessible spots over and on to be on this side. And the challenge was if the accessible spots are on this side, we would need to build a wall along the property line to reduce the grade to allow for for somebody who's um in a
wheelchair to be able to get down our driveway at less than a 1 to 20 slope at a 5% grade. That's why we put it in this location so that it allows for an accessible egress off of the site. So, I mean, it's specifically there for a
reason. It wasn't done. Okay. Understandable. Uh I mean, it I'm reading the grading plans and it looks like the spot that has the number six in it may be able to to meet there. I know you're you're regrading the whole parking lot. Um, and if you could meet
that same uh route that's shown uh on that diagram um from that space, I think it would improve the improve uh placing the ADA space on the shortest accessible route. Um I do see
the concern of of having a parking space against there. Um, so ultimately what I was getting at is is if uh several spaces were reduced in width from 9 ft uh to 8 feet or eight and if all spaces are reduced to to 8 1/2 ft, you could
pick up some of that additional space adjacent to the building um to provide that clearance to allow a vehicle to park in the northernmost parking space. Just as an aside, I don't have the my larger set of drawings open at the end of the new building. That's a staircase,
isn't it? There. So, if somebody were to use that staircase and that space were up against the if it shifted over and the driver and the walking the access aisle was eliminated, you couldn't use that. Well, I think Dan is saying that if we
shrink the spaces, then then we could still have a space at the end. and and I would say that that we would gladly sit down with Dan and the town to resolve, you know, this um if the project was to move forward from tonight, you know, I
mean, we can this is not a Yeah, I mean I'm sure hopefully we can come to a resolution. You're out. Yeah, I mean the only reason I bring it up though is if there is a reduction of the space is uh it is a design waiver which would need to be granted by the
board. Um, so just something to consider as as we're talking uh during this application. That wouldn't necessarily be just a compliance review issue. Okay. Thank you, Dan. Mhm. Any other questions,
Mr. Chairman? I know you have your traffic engineer. I think he's still here tonight. And I don't know if you want to ask him if he has any comments or questions for Mr. Jacmar. Where's Mr. Here he is. Sir, we know I
don't I'm not sure if we swore you in. So, let me just swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. Um, I really don't have a lot of
questions for George. I think he addressed most of my comments. I I I do have um a little bit of concern um regarding the uh ADA location and I
think Dan brought that up. Um, somebody on wheelchair will have to traverse behind parked cars along the driveway to assess the the access slopes
in front. I think that concerns me a little bit in terms of the hazards post because they're sitting low below the cars that are parked. I understand that. I mean these are familiar drivers but
still it is a hazard. Uh I think relocating the ADA space closer to the uh driveway gives a clear sight line for uh anybody
on wheelchair. That is one concern I have. Um the the a little subtle concern is really more about I think one of the uh board members
brought this up about the um laundromat uh and and the office space parking. Um it it just seems there is no
there's no redundancy at all. This every every uh parking is pushed to the street. uh and the assumption that almost everybody will walk or bike to
the place uh it's a little less than conservative to me. I think there there has to be some um some forgiveness in in the plan. Um and
I asked a question in my report. I had asked what happens on weekends when the office is closed. Is the parking spaces there still off limit to everybody? Um
and I heard testimony that signing will be will be showing it's for office use only. So there are issu there are certain times when
uh drivers will drive in there they expect to get parking they expect to park there is that violation of their expectancy that I'm concerned about when they come in there especially
um ADA if somebody who uh who is on wheelchair there who needs to use the laundromat will will not find parking on the street that is accessible for them to get to the laundromat or
even park at the Avalon to access the laundromat even if it's one car. So I think there is no no really redundancy for that and that's the only little concern I have and I was hoping
to hear a little bit more of that. I'm more concerned about ADA uh persons and also if if the assumption is that cars are very going are going to be limited would you consider
increasing biking uh bike space parking if you're expecting more people to bike to the location. So those are the kind of things I was hoping to hear that you know we don't we don't expect a lot of cars and so we're increasing back spaces
or we providing this kind of provision for ADA. I I I don't know if you can address that one way or the other. That's the only concern I have in terms of traffic volume. I don't think uh you're going to have high traffic, but
there's parking and the operation itself. You already have very narrow drive aisles and two-way circulation is going to be a problem. Uh so uh those are the kind of
issues I have and I also had made a comment about um the ADA accessible aisle that is 11 ft. You you you have a minimum of 8 ft. I I still don't understand why
you have a constrained location and you don't want to use the 8 ft. Why the 11 ft? because it's what D was also saying. You can cut down the spaces and be able to fit uh the vehicles and they can also
maneuver better in that space. That that's all I I have to say. I mean, if you want to address any of them, that's fine. I can I can address some of them. George can address some of them. Um, just with with regard to the ADA, okay, the
American with Disabilities Act says that we have to take people on a common path of travel. It specifically says bringing people into the back of a building is not acceptable. Okay, that is not an acceptable. So, bringing them to the front of the building and with our
solution allows for them to park there. There are handicap spots within a block on Witherspoon Street, okay? So, you could park, you know, on Witherspoon Street in an ADA spot, okay? And walk and walk or roll your your wheelchair
and and the town just added a crosswalk directly in front of our building, okay? That's level. Um, so you can you can go through that path. And I believe very strongly that that's more in keeping with the intent of the American with Disabilities Act than it is for somebody
to go behind the building. Okay. Now I believe our civil engineer u mentioned earlier that the required size and we are being required to have a van accessible spot. Okay. The size that we have documented is the size that is
required. It's I believe it's 11 feet and has a five foot five foot side aisle and that's what's required as far as the other components. George, you want to chime in? Well, I think in terms of eight
8 ft is is the minimum required. It doesn't have to be 11 ft for a van. It has to be being told it's a van accessible spot. Um Kelly, you want to chime in? I know you turn yourself off. No, I I think I can I can address it. I I think there are two
options. One is either 11 feet for the van plus 5t for the access eye or it's 8 ft for the regular car plus 8 ft for the access. It always comes down to 16 ft. That's our understanding. So I we would
love to narrow it, but I I don't think we're not allowed to do it because it's either 8 + 8 or 11 + 5. That's my understanding of the ADA. Um I think you know in terms of ADA access and I leave
that up to Joshua maybe we can allow when we say uh no parking except for Joshua Zinda architects and so on could say except for ADA space and I think it's my understanding whenever there is an ADA space any ADA person can use it
and so we could make the ADA space access allowable space for a patron that goes to the laundromat. I think that may be relatively easy to do, but again, we don't want to encourage, you know, more
laundromat patients to drive back there because it is relatively narrow and it makes a difference in terms of parking. If it's somebody who parks there every day, it's an employee who knows to drive in and out versus somebody who, you know, drives in there and maybe drives only once a month or something like
that. Uh so that's why we feel that's the best arrangement. I also recommended maybe you know the that the laundromat on their website say we do not have on-site parking to be very clear to the patrons that go there. This is a place for
people walking and bicycling as much as possible. Um and if somebody wants to drive they can drive and and but they also have the choice of the free parking at the Princon Shopping Center. And with regard to the question that you had
about um biking, you know, we do have more than double twice the amount of bike parking that is required. You know, we are putting, you know, eight minimum eight bike spots directly in front of the laundromat. Um so we we are focused
on that as well. I think you have a total of 12, right, Josh? Yeah, we have we have three in the back um by the uh you know, at our at the porch entrance to our office. Um, you know, we hope we can get more in the covered bike parking area, but you know,
right now it seems like we'll be able to get at least three in the covered area. We're going to try to get one or two more. And by comparison, the ordinance requires six. Yes. Do we go on to our planner? I think we can at this point. We have uh
a little under 20 minutes. Okay. Please continue. Okay. Our planner, John, are you there? Yes. We need to get him sworn in. This is John Mcdana. Mr. Mcdana, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful.
Yes, I do. Thank you. Um John's license, um he's presented before this zoning board before. Would you like us to go through? He's testified. Thank your planning license is is valid in New Jersey, I think you'd be good to
go. Yes, current and in good standing on the state level and national AICP as well. Take it away, Christopher. Thank you. Okay, so Mr. Chairman, I think I can be relatively brief here. The board's heard a lot of testimony tonight, which forms
a good predicate for uh the relief that the applicant is seeking. I'm going to take it back to the statute. Um, at the end of the day, the list of the relief here is not really that long. Um, so I think we can give it to you in in relatively short order. Um, we're going
to start here with the exhibit packet that's been given to you uh, previously entered and we're now on page 105. This is going to take you to page 113 or slide 113, which will be the the last couple sheets here in the deck. First image is a satellite image just to show
the subject property. As you heard, it's a single tax lot, block 6907, lot number 17. It's a little less than 10,000 square feet, 9,760 square feet. Uh, presently developed as the office for Joshua's Indoor
Architecture and Design. We know it was a historic or is a historic home, the Anetta V. Taylor House. Um, surrounding land use con uh context. From a pure physical planning standpoint, suffice it to say, I think we can see here that we
are talking about a transitional lot uh where sometimes these uh additional floor area relief becomes appropriate. You've got the massive Avalon Bay off to the right there or to the east and then we transition to the smaller lot, residential to the west, north, and and
and south. Notwithstanding the physical planning aspect of this as well as a transitional lot. Suffice it to say from a zoning standpoint, we are at a transitional lot as well. You heard through all of the witnesses before me that we are at the convergence of
multiple zones here. You've got the R4, you've got the R9, you've got the RB, you've got the HMC, and then of course you've got the influence of this overlay, this AH-7 overlay zone, which as you heard through Josh's testimony, could produce a larger
building here with lesser parking demand. I believe it comes down to five or so spaces would be required here for a for a larger building. Josh, you can go to the next couple of slides here, and I won't dwell on either one of them. But they basically show the site in the
context of the neighborhood and how you do have this much larger massive building that does have influence on this particular site, a visually prominent corner in the community. You heard about the practical difficulties of putting a structure on the corner
back in the day and how that is now feasible. uh this is sort of going to complete the site uh with the historic aspect staying intact and then of course complementing it with uh the new divide and then the new portion uh that will meet the needs of uh of this end user.
Um at the heart of this application we are here and Josh you can keep going through these. Um the main point here is the laundromat land use is a permitted use in the zone district. We're not asking for any relief in that regard with respect to the B1. It is a land use
that follows rooftops more than it follows headlights. And again, suffice it to say, you can see rooftops um all around the area here. So, this will certainly accommodate a local scale uh walkable nature of the area, highly walkable nature of the area and is
conducive to a local service type business, which is right in line with what your 2023 master plan uh would look for. Importantly, your master plan 2023 also talks about economic development goals and eliminating barriers to creating economic growth. One of the
fundamental tenants of the master plan is to retain existing businesses and you have a business here that has a long-standing commitment to the community. Your master plan talks about um of course maintaining the community as a community of excellence. You have a
top tier architecture firm here of the highest quality. This is looking to enhance that established business with the commitment to the community. I think that's certainly going to go towards the positive criteria of this application. The zone, we're in the B1 zone district.
The intent of the zone is implicit to the name to provide a variety of business and service uses, which is exactly what our applicant is doing here. We have D relief, but it is not use relief. It is related to the the bulk of the building. and you've got a
lot of visual and functional evidence as to how this site does work uh and fit the plan before you with the context of the neighborhood. All of the proposed uses are permitted in the zone. No D relief is required in that regard. In terms of zone conformance, importantly,
the project fully conforms not only as to use, it substantially conforms as to most of the bulk controls in your B1 zone. This lot that you're looking at here is especially spacious or exceptionally large in the context of the zoning. It is more than double the
zoning requirement. Absolutely no relief being requested here for the lot coverage. And as you've heard, the building setbacks on all sides comply with your zoning ordinance. In terms of the relief, the applicant is asking you to move on four buckets of
relief. Number one is that devariance for floor area. 0.736 is what's being required here under the letter of your ordinance or proposed here under the letter of your ordinance where 0.6 would be the maximum that's allowed. Again, if you went back to
slide number 50 or something in the 50s as Josh showed you without the covered porch, without the bike storage, which we think are con context sensitive design elements, you would be at 0.64. So just an uptick above what the
ordinance requirement of 0.6 would be. Most importantly, based on all of the testimony, the site can accommodate any problems with that additional floor area. You've got good predicate testimony in terms of sufficing with respect to parking
demand, water demand, sewer demand, um, and all of the community service demands that would be associated with that additional floor area. In terms of the justification for that D4 relief will go to the statutory positive and negative criteria. In terms
of the positive criteria, the project as a whole will advance multiple purposes of the land use law at NJSA4 55D-2. Especially purpose A, the project as a whole will promote the general welfare with enhancements to that established
business JZDNA. Uh, purpose G. The project promotes the planning goal for a variety of uses and appropriate locations according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens by delivering permitted uses, including professional offices, neighborhood scale
retail, neighborhood scale service in a commercial business zone district. Essentially, with respect to the laundromat, this is going to be uh bring the use closer to the population that it will serve. uh you just go back to that survey that Josh showed you at the very
outset of his testimony. Additionally, we see the advancement of purpose I the promotion of a desirable visual environment with an aesthetic focal point to anchor and beautify a visually prominent corner in the community. Uh next, purpose M, the planning goal to promote efficient use of land with
adaptive reuse of an existing building. Infill development that is compatible with the area on an exceptionally large lot. And then finally, purpose J and purpose P which have some interplay here with respect to historic preservation
which remains a fundamental goal of uh all land use planning in New Jersey. And purpose P in particular talks about providing or enabling concentrated development to accommodate growth while preserving historic sites. And again, we're in that historic district. So we
think this adds to the contributing aspect with respect to the negative criteria. Based on all the testimony, the site can accommodate any problems with the additional F. Visually, you've got 100 plus exhibits here to show infill development
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Uh this here perhaps is the home run shot to show the influence of what's around us. Functionally, again, we've talked about traffic, parking, water, sewer demand. In short, there is substantial credible evidence
that the development will not exceed the carrying capacity of the land. Therefore, relief can be granted without detriment to the public. And likewise, relief can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan. This relates to a distinct lot, not the
whole B1 zone district. It's a corner lot, a special corner lot, a transitional lot right across the street from that big building that you see across the street. You've got relief for the conditional use, which again I think the predicate is there. You have some criteria in your ordinance that would
justify the conditional use relief for one shared parking space. The three criteria are found in section T10-B-321 in your ordinance. It's three-fold. Number one, the parking space serves as
a use within feas feasible distance. uh the use is immediately adjacent. So that I think is a very logical justification. Number two, there are no nuisance factors. The area is already used for parking. There is buffering adjacent to lot number 16. And then finally, there
is no additional traffic. Uh the area is already used for parking and this is replacement in kind. I'll close by saying there's a bucket of C relief that the applicant is asking the board to move on. The predicate for all of that relief is there under the flexible sea
balancing test as a better as a better zoning alternative for the property where the benefits that I've just given you as the application as a whole would outweigh or substantially outweigh any detriments. The front setback 7.5 ft as
opposed to 10 is for a retaining wall not for the building for those accessible pathways to the building. The building height is just a foot foot and a half above the ordinance allowance and that maintains the building height that's there. The building is not going
up but the grade is dropping down. So I see that as somewhat of a technical variance. The buffer, you've got the justification for there and the practical difficulty if this applicant were to comply with all the buffers. Uh we've got a shed size building that fits on the property.
The driveway width is inherent to the shared nature of the driveway and the parking supply. I won't be redundant. You've got good solid evidence from all of the witnesses in particular Georgees before me. Finally, uh Mr. Chairman, there's relief for design exceptions. Um
I'll fall back on the testimony of the designers. That's a lesser standard, more relaxed standard of proof. Um it's reasonable, it's appropriate. Um there's a level of impracticability whereby strict or literal enforcement of the ordinance in my view um would serve no
practical planning purpose with respect to the parking space dimension and the parking aisle width. Um all said this is a very very good application very good use of land most importantly meets the statutory criteria for approval and
therefore my planning conclusion is that approval is warranted. Um, that's all I have on direct Christopher board members. Any question of Mr. Mcdana? Okay. Uh, Mr. Mcdana, can you take your screen down? Um, thank you. You're
welcome. Um, it's actually not meing that, Mr. Chairman. So, I just yeah, I just wanted to say uh um in conclusion, thank you all for your time tonight. We hope you find our proposal
compelling. Uh the use and design also a valuable addition to the fabric of our community. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay. Um we it is it's 10:54.
Um what we would do is at this point is allow the applicant's attorney to sum up before we went to public comment. Well, first of all, we'd ask the questions of the board members of any of the witnesses. Um and then we would uh allow
the attorney to sum up and we go to public comment. But I don't think um unless are there any questions board members that you have now? Michael as a do you have a question Michael? Um,
yeah. Do we want to, you know, I was thinking hear from any of municipal staff in response, you know, whether it be agree, disagree,
whatever, of what's been presented um, regarding the concerns that staff has made earlier and wanted addressed. And I'm specifically talking about the planner
um zoning officer um Elizabeth Kim um because quite honestly and some things I'm deferring to them. We heard from our our traffic consultant. So that's my question and it's more to
you Mr. Chair and to the board. My feeling is I'd like to hear from our staff and comments on uh on the testimony. Um what I think we should do is maybe defer that and that would be
the first order of business when we came back into session at the continuation date. Would that be acceptable to everybody? I mean, we have a we have a break in the application. We can't finish it tonight. So, we're going to have to break it at
some point. It would be I believe um Claudia the the uh the audio tape of this hearing would be available on the website. Yes, the video will be on well the video. Sure. So, I and so I
know there's a couple of things I want I made notes as I went along that I want to listen to again. So we could do that. You know, again, board members, you could do that. Then it then this thing will be fresh in your minds. And then the first order of business would be to hear from our staff on their comments.
That sounds nice to break at 11. Can't we keep going? Dan, I mean, board members, what do you want to do? I mean, I'm I'm tired, but I'd rather keep going than come back and revisit the whole thing again. Well, just keep in mind that you I don't know if anybody
in the public wants to make comments. Somebody I believe is out there beyond the headc count that would account for staff and uh everybody else. So, I have no idea. But if you're going to keep
going, then you'd have to take public comment as well. May maybe we could get a a hands raised for anybody in the audience to just get a poll to see who's planning on speaking. That's good. All right. If there's anybody in the
audience in the audience who plans on speaking on behalf of this indication, can you raise your hand so Claudia can see if there is anyone in fact? Gloria, I don't see any hands. I'm looking at it.
I don't either. So, um, but again, we're only going to get, uh, here, Claudia, did anybody indicate they'd like to speak? No hands. Okay. Um, well, this voice in my opinion, other people
may have may want to take a break and Board members, what's your preference? I'm tired, too. But I do think it's important to I I I think it's an important thing to try to resolve if we can tonight.
You want to try to finish tonight? Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying. Yeah. Okay. If that's not reason, I don't know if that's unreasonable or not. I'm not sure. Who knows? We don't know. Um well again I think Michael's comment
about the staff commenting on the testimony I think is important. So maybe we start with that right now and then we go to executive and then we go to public comment which there may be none and then
we go to executive session so that way we get all the testimony in. So, um, we have Dan Weissman, we have, uh, Jason Leco, and we have Elizabeth Kim.
Um, question. Yes. Yeah. Do you want to go past midnight? You know, I don't I mean, if really want to finish tonight, it may be one o'clock before we're done. Oh, no. I don't think my you know my
feeling is there's there's probably going to be a lot of discussion about this um because of the complexity of the application. So I I you know I I agree with you chair because of the complexity of the application
in my mind if there's those people that think this is a simple application when you look at each and every and I'm not saying I'm voting against any number of of variance requests, but they need due consideration
and talked about individually, which I think we got off a little bit last special meeting and and Karen had to ask us to justify and uh a little bit more and
yeah um and it's even as I say one report environmental commission has never been presented to us and maybe I don't know well I think no I I agree with you I think some people are looking at it as a very simple application
that works I don't buy that for a minute but I'm on the other hand we've been sitting here for three and a half hours you know why walk away from it now if we could get it done in the next 45 minutes can I make a comment please yes please I don't see this getting done in the
next 45 minutes. In all honesty, I agree. We have 728 Bun Drive coming back next week. Special meeting. Um that's for a parking study. Uh you're familiar with that case. I don't think there's a lot more that we can discuss with that. We
could put this on after that or um and then we could have a couple hours of time when it's not going to be, you know, after 11:00. Um and it is a complicated case. There's a lot of variances. That's if that's the way people feel. That's fine with me, right? Yeah. I I think the fact that it's taken
us this long and we haven't even gotten to a discussion, it's not going to be a quick conclusion, right? Here's what I would suggest. I would suggest that we cut it off now. The when we come back, we'll hear from the environmental commission. We still have
to hear again back from the fire chief. We'll hear from our e our staff members. And then I would encourage the board members to listen to the or look at the video just to refresh themselves so
we're all fresh. And so the question would be then when would this be continued to next week? Next week after the after the other case. Yeah. I I just want to be on the record of saying I don't think of this as simple.
I think of it as important. And I was worried that maybe the next time we could listen, you know, pick it up might be October or something. So, the fact that it's next week is good news. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. I'll still What date are we looking at? Just so we can
July 30th, Chris. July 30. Okay. Now, I think that so I'm assuming the board would like the applicants consultants back again on
July 30th. That correct? I think it's important because we're going to have our we're going to have our staff members in there and and so I think it's important to have everybody who was here the first time back again. Me?
Yeah, I'll just have my They're all online. just chime in just to confirm that you're available um on July 30th. It would be at 7:30. Uh you would be you would be after our
first application. So you would be second on the agenda. Okay. Is that correct? Yes. Yes, sir. What's the first application just so we have an idea? Is the first application is a continuation,
Chris. It's an appeal of the zoning officer's uh determination on a zoning permit. Okay. I'm available. I think it I think it looks good for the 30th.
Kelly, can you do it? Yes. He said he could. Yes. George. Yes, I can. Although I will be in Europe, but I can do it. Well, you are now too, right?
George, I'll be six hours ahead, but I can do it. Just grab a glass of orange juice. George is in Luxembourg right now, right? Is that It's 5:00 in the morning. We can keep going. Every paid, you guys
don't. Uh Derek, can I ask you to uh see check with the fire chief marshall? Yes, sir. To and and also make sure or at least get a copy of or a testimony from the
environmental people. I mean, I I can read their their cogent points into the record. It's an executive summary. Um that's fine. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. that are board members.
Yes. Okay. Good. So, for the benefit of anybody who is listening tonight, this application's being carried to July 30th and there will not be any further noticing by the applicant. So, you're hearing tonight
what the new hearing date will be and it's uh July 30th at 7:30 and the link that they use this evening is the same link I believe. And either let me check on that one second. Okay.
Yeah. In either case, the link is available, I should say, on the website as part of the record. Correct. Agenda on the website on the municipal website. John Mcdana, are you available? You You're muted. Lock it in.
Great. Okay. Lot going on here. Yeah. Well, we really do appreciate your time. Um, I know it's late, especially for George or early, I should say, but uh, thank you very much for for all the
time and we look forward to um, getting to a conclusion uh, next week or a very thorough presentation. So, all right. Well, let's uh, we'll we'll call it a night. Thank you all for coming and it's 11:06.
I would say the meeting is adjourned. Okay. Well done, Steve. Thank you. Good night. Thank you. What Stephen? Well done. Okay. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Night. Bye, George. Goodbye.
Bye, Gloria. Bye. Bye. Have a good night. Good night.