Okay. Good evening. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically. Excuse me. Let me begin again. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held on
February 11, 2022 26 at 7:10 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 on the official bulletin board at the municipal complex and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet, town topics, the Times, Trantonian, and by filing a copy
with the clerk of Princeton on February 6, 2026 and has been posted to the municipal website in consideration of Executive Order 292
issued by issued by Governor Murphy on March 4th, 2022 declaring a continued state of emergency in the state of New Jersey. The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment does hereby notify the public that to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens while ensuring the continued functioning of government. This regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment will be held electronically.
Only members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting may do so by telephone on telephone or through video conferencing plat through through a
video conferencing platform via Zoom by accessing the telephone numbers and links posted on the municipal website www.princeton Princeton NJ.gov
opening meeting open zoning board meeting agenda. Okay. All right. Um before we begin, >> wait, we need roll call vote. Steve, >> we have roll call. Excuse me.
>> Chen >> here. Sorry, I couldn't unmute myself. >> Thank you. Miss Coulson >> here. >> Miss Donna. >> Yes, >> Mr. Floyd. >> Here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here.
>> Mr. Tenbomb >> here. >> Mr. Stein, Mr. Doppkin, Chairman Cohen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, we have one resolution this evening. Case number Z25-73,
8 Valley Road, block 701, lot 36. Uh the resolution is in your packet. Uh are there any questions, comments, corrections, or if not, if someone like
to make a motion to approve? >> I move approval. Floyd. Thank you. >> Second, anyone? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson,
>> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Striver? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tannen? >> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have one application this evening for clarification.
140 164 Prospect Avenue K Z25-653 has been moved to the March 25th meeting by m by mutual agreement with the board and the applicant. So if anyone is in the audience that wanted to
participate in that hearing that will be put off until March 25th. Okay. Our next application is case number Z25-651
344 Nassau Street block 32.01 lot 214 in the AH2 zone. This is a continuation of our hearing a previous hearing. Claudia I well excuse me Karen I believe
we've taken action already. I would like to um provide a comment to the board and some guidance. >> Please. >> Uh at the last meeting, the applicant presented its project premised upon the assumption that their two affordable
units would be considered part of the town's prior affordable housing obligation cycle. And that's commonly referred to as the third round. Just by way of brief background, the
town is currently in a new cycle of affordable housing obligations, which is referred to as the fourth round. And the applicable New Jersey state affordable housing regulations
have been amended um to reflect um these this current cycle of affordable housing. Um based on a further review of the state affordable housing regulations,
uh I believe that the the applicants affordable units should properly be considered part of the current affordable housing cycle, meaning the fourth round. In practical terms, what
this would mean is that the applicant would need to comply with certain square footage standards which are in the affordable housing state affordable housing regulations for the unit and for the bedroom sizes.
Uh, in addition, if the current state affordable housing regulations are applied, they could be read to allow the applicant to provide two twobedroom
affordable units uh through a I'm not going to go through the analysis that those rents provide because it's somewhat uh cumbersome analysis. Uh you'll remember that when they appeared last at the last
appeared, they were presenting a two-bedroom and a three-bedroom uh to reflect the uh comments that had been issued by staff in their review memos. The municipal affordable housing
regulations provide both that the applicant should comply with the state affordable housing ress but they also indicate that for this project uh they would need to provide one threebedroom unit.
My suggestion to the board is that after hearing all the testimony, should you decide to approve the project, that a condition of approval be that the applicant needs to go to the governing body to obtain the appropriate approval
uh with respect to the bedroom count. Uh I make this suggestion because uh the town's affordable housing ress are not part of the zoning code that code that means the board doesn't have jurisdiction to grant a variance
and with respect to trying to grant a waiver uh quite honestly um an analysis of the town's affordable housing plan I I don't really think is within the board's purview.
Um the application is properly before this board. You'll be hearing about all uh aspects of the application and it also may be that in hearing testimony you may decide that
um the site is more appropriately suited to two two-bedroom units and one two-bedroom and one threebedroom. Uh regardless if you decide to approve it, that would be my suggestion to the
board that it needs to now then as a condition as you do with other third party approvals, DP, Mercer County Planning Board, DOT, DNR Canal Commission. Um that is not an impediment
to hearing the application. It's just that I believe it's the governing body that is in the appropriate position to uh direct the applicant as to whether they should be doing two two-bedroom units or
one twobedroom and one threebedroom. So having said that, I don't know if anyone has questions or um >> I have a question. Yep. >> The re revised drawings that the applicant submitted is still showing the
threebedroom. It it is because this issue as I said in preparation for the meeting been doing some further review of the regs and I can share those state regs with you but they're a little
lengthy and simply put um I have talked to the applicant about this and it's my understanding tonight that they are ready to present um you know revi revised depictions showing doing two twobedroom units, which I understand was
their original um preference anyway, that they were going to going to provide a a one three-bedroom unit. um I guess based on the assumption that this would fall within um the third
round regulations. But looking carefully at the current affordable house, state affordable housing regulations, which are commonly referred to as the UHACK regulations,
that's uniform uh housing affordability controls. Um I I I think clearly this unit or their units would need to be considered under the most
recent regulations. So, those regulations raise the possibility that they don't need to provide a three-bedroom unit, and it also obligates them now to meet some specific
uh square footage standards, which I think uh they'll explain to you tonight, you know, what the size of the units are going to be now. >> Okay, that was my question. Okay. >> So, if if one moment, Michael. So, if they um if they go to the governing body
and the governing body determines that it can be a two-bedroom unit, then are we are we basically looking at this? How are we how are we reviewing it? Are we reviewing it as a three as presented
with the alternative that they can do a two if the governing body allows them to do it? I wouldn't suggest that. Um, I I would suggest reviewing this uh as two twobedroom units because
certainly these new regulations could be read, and I and I say could be read because it's not extremely clear, but they could be read to say that they only have to provide two two-bedroom units. and the municipal ordinance
on the one hand it says they should comply with the state affordable housing rights on the other hand it says oh yes and we also want uh 20% of your affordables need to be threebedroom so
I don't think I I think that trying to do this alternatively to say well it would be threebedroom but if the town says it's okay then it's twobedroom their plans have to reflect something that's being approved tonight. So that's why
>> and so far it's been a threebedroom. >> Correct. My understanding and I want to speak for Mr. Tar, but my understanding is tonight they would be presenting some testimony about two twobedroom where they would be located
uh in addition to all the other testimony they're going to be presenting regarding other aspects of the site. But the drawings that they've given us, the revised drawings show a slightly reconfigured threebedroom.
>> Correct. Mr. Instead instead of I won't speak for you, Mr. Tar. Am I correct in assuming that tonight you'll have some something uh revised to share with the board? >> We certainly can verbally explain. Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out
that the the exchange of information, the exchange of ideas between Miss Casey and Mr. Vanheis, the municipal affordable housing attorney, and our office took place at 4:15 yesterday afternoon. So, uh, we've acted as quickly as we can
and we've we've tried to make clear to the board that this is not within the jurisdiction of the board, that it's solely within the jurisdiction of the governing body. Now we can show you uh where in the building we intend to put them. And in fact, Mr. Barski's reacted
quite quickly and said there was a lengthy discussion last month as to whether the first floor unit that was to the rear. >> Excuse me. Not let me let's let's defer this till we get into the hearing portion. I mean I think
>> Okay. Okay. But I want to be clear the board lacks jurisdiction to get into the details of affordable housing. So, we'll talk about it. We'll show you drawings, but that's our view that we, as Miss Casey has suggested, if you were to approve this application, we'd ask that
you condition it upon compliance with the U-Hack rules and the municipal rules uh uh that are controlled and governed by the governing body and staff. >> Mr. T, Mr. Char, I think the area where we might disagree a little bit is simply
that the U-Hack rules do provide that affordable units should not be in a less desirable location than market. >> Right. Right. Right. And I'd like to I'd like to speak to that if I may and I was beginning to when the chairman suggested we do it later, but I want to just outline it for the board. The thought
was there was a colloquy back and forth with our expert about whether that >> where'd he go? >> Oh, looks like Mr. Tarsb Oh, here he's coming back. Okay.
Okay, >> we lost you for a few minutes there, >> muted. You're muted. >> And you're muted. And you're muted. >> I think I'm unmuted now. >> You are. Uh there was a discussion as to whether that rear unit was inferior to the other
units in the building because it looked out the window on the bicycle rack and the and the storage area. Uh Mr. Barski's uh prepared to say that that unit ought not be used as an affordable
unit, rather that the front unit facing Harrison Street and one unit upstairs be affordable units. And that's as far as we thought we needed to go. That uh that there was just to get past that debate about whether it's inferior and suitable
or less suitable to say that it won't be used as affordable housing. >> Okay. >> Well, go ahead, Karen. >> No, I was going to say then I guess the board can hear the testimony and then we'll I guess see at that point if there's still questions or concerns. So
>> by by all means, let me outline where I'd like to take the hearing tonight. Well, can we one one second, Mr. Tar? Michael, did you have a comment? >> Yeah, regarding what Karen explained to us. Um,
which actually I'm surprised the discussion point was first in staff's memo regarding fourth
um versus third. What goes back probably three and a half months ago. >> Mhm. Now, we were presented with a three-bedroom
and a twobedroom last time, and I thought that was resolved. Now, I I respect the right to bring it back or to say it's not. It wasn't resolved. I first now
I'm surprised that at whatever 4:00 this afternoon Vanheis and the municipality and the applicant had a discussion obviously with no resolution. Um
I I agree with Mr. Tar and Mr. Barski. It's not the plan at the zoning board's area to decide. Um, I have trouble listening to this further
conditioning something on whether it's something or something else or whatever. I think the municipality and applicant should resolve this first and bring it back when it's resolved
because whether it's a three-bedroom, what are we deciding on? I don't particularly want to condition a decision one way or another. It's too easy to resolve this and we're not the place to do it.
>> Mr. Floyd, it is not easy. The regulations are brand new. The last round of regulations came out in December. They're 100 pages long. It's complex, but it's within the jurisdiction of the governing body. You have the outside of the building. You know where the units are. You know that
one of the units upstairs is going to be affordable. It looks like all the other units. Doesn't matter which one. And the one downstairs, we've agreed to use only the one toward the front uh toward Harrison Street. So, there's no uh mystery here.
Well, >> you know, yeah. Okay. I won't debate you on it. I'm a I'm acquainted with U-Hack. I was acquainted with you 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and it can be resolved.
>> Well, we think we have resolved it, Michael. Um, and there was confusion with this. We did meet with staff a week or two after the hearing in an attempt to to iron it out and we thought we had it ironed it out, but there were several words at the end of the paragraph that
everyone missed and that's why we're here today. We think this applicaation as it is. I think you'll hear them present what they're I'd like to hear them so we're not putting testimony in their mouths, but I think the board can review this application. Uh it is really
the the town's plan. If there's a deviation with just two two bedrooms going forward, that would be an outside approval just like DRCC would be on a on any site plan. So, uh there's no trying to offiscate the facts here. It was it's
complex and we've been working with the applicant pretty closely in the in entering in the last month to to work this out. So, and we think we have at this point, >> Mr. to indicate what we >> Okay, Justin.
>> So now you you've been working the last month to work it out. So it wasn't just this afternoon >> and it's still not worked out. >> I'm happy to shed some light on that too, but I think I need to be sworn in because I didn't um speak at the last meeting.
>> Well, do do we want to get the hearing opened and start? Um how do we want to do this, Karen? What's your suggestion? >> You're muted, Karen. >> I mean, at this juncture, the uh if the
board would like to hear from you have a amended planners report and Mr. Leco is here tonight to present that and answer any questions. Uh there may be additional comments from Mr. Bridger. We
also have the board's uh traffic engineer, Mr. Aniki, and we have Mr. PCEL, the board's land use engineer. So, I'd suggest maybe the board hear from their consultants and then Mr. Tar can continue now with his
uh presentation. >> Let me just add Oh, Michael, did you want to say something? >> Yeah, I would um I would say Mr. Mr. Leco just offered to make some type of
uh uh clarification or statement on where staff is or the municipality is now. I think that is part of this discussion prior to going into, you know, the case itself if that's where we
go. So I'd like to hear from Mr. Leco just like we just heard from Mr. Bridger. Okay, >> Justin, if we just swear you in, do you swear affirm your testimony this evening, we'll be truthful. >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. >> Yes, and thank you, Mr. Floyd, because
agreed completely. Um, just kind of to reiterate what we just heard, but with more detail. Uh, the UAC changed right around Christmas time. Um, and like Mr. Tar said, it was about 100 pages long at that time. Um, I know I was not reading it on Christmas Eve. Um but then in
January uh we received a a letter from the applicant um uh discussing their position on one item and we went back and forth for a while on that um at you know and I we came to a conclusion after
the hearing um that we had when we met with them like like Mr. Bridger said. Um but then earlier this week I actually noticed uh one line like Mr. Bridger said, um, that would not qualify this to be a prior round, uh, site. And once I
noticed that, you know, we let's follow the right thing. Um, because you'll even see in my report that was dated Monday, I talk about, and it's a co-written report with our associate director, Nathan, who presented last time, but is not here tonight. Um, I even wrote about
the two-bedroom and the three-bedroom at that time. So, uh, this was really a Tuesday thing, you know, preparing for the meeting where we noticed one more thing after discussing for the past month something else. So, that's part of the reason as we're becoming more comfortable with this new U-Hack um that
replaces the temporary one that existed for a year and the one before that that existed for 20 years. Um, and part of the reason why there's a discrepancy uh in our ordinance with what U-Hack it reflects is it still reflects the third round of affordable housing because
again we got that new U-Hack in mid December, late December. Um, but the state gave us a March deadline to update those regulatory ordinances. So, we're actually working on doing that by our March 15th deadline along with about a dozen ordinances for specific sites. Um
once that's done, we will have, you know, hopefully everything on the same uh page um with the fourth round regulations. >> Okay. >> Does that mean that we will have a definitive requirement whether it's a
two or a three? Yes, I think it's going to stay the same way it is right now. Um, of uh they can they can have the two twobedrooms um just the process is going to be more spelt out of how someone goes to council after the fact. Right now it's kind of
an interim process um that's not necessarily spelt out in our ordinance but has been spelt out by our municipal attorneys. So, but we we do have a revised drawing showing a threebedroom, not a two. And I understand it's it's a similar unit to
what's up above. So, should they present? Well, I don't know what they want to do. What >> Let's just take a step back. Mr. Allesco, would you like to review your amended memo with the board? Would the board like to hear that before they hear
from the applicant? >> I think yeah, I think it's a good idea if we do hear it. >> I can certainly do that. Although there have been um a handful of new exhibits uh that were sent in. Um I know last time the applicant did not fully get to their planner. Uh they did not get to
their attorney or they did not get to their engineer. So, some of the things that I mentioned in my report, it might be better served to see those exhibits first and then we can discuss them. Uh, in my opinion, or if you'd like, I could just jump right into them. But, you know, you're going to be hearing a lot
of words before you see the the images. >> I I would think that we probably want to see the exhibits first. >> Then, I'd like to indicate the order in which we intend to proceed tonight. Uh our engineer Jim Kamalik was away last
month but is here uh tonight. Uh he's going to review the site plan drawing. He's going to talk about storm drainage, bicycle parking, the fence details, and the parking lot landscaping.
Marina Rabbina was present at the last hearing as our architect and uh she is going to talk about the nature of the exterior of the building and its compatibility with the neighborhood with the historic neighborhood. Uh Mr. Barski
is going to be assisted by George Jacart with respect to traffic and parking issues. Uh and then Daniel's going to go through the memoranda number paragraph item by item to indicate the compliance with all of the
items or in some cases a need to discuss one or two of them further. And after all of that is done, Mr. Rayamp, our planner, will provide the planning testimony and support for the variances that have been requested.
Uh there's um one more set of folks was quite unusual, but we're very proud of this. The folks from Save Jugtown, our neighbors who vehemently opposed the earlier application are here tonight in support of the
application. They're represented by Bruce Afran, but they include Clifford Zinc and Kathy Knight and Don Denny, each of whom wants to speak very briefly uh as to why Save Jugtown came to support the application.
And after all that is done, I'd like the opportunity to sum up very very briefly after we finished. Jim Kamalik was not here and would have to be sworn if Karen could do so. >> I I I would and honestly, Mr. I don't remember who we swore in last time and
who we didn't. So I think we'll just rewear. We have Mr. Chimalik. We have Mr. Jacmar. We have >> Mr. Rabbina. >> Mr. Barski and Mr. Renamp. >> Correct.
>> All right. And all of you, do you swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful? Yes, >> I do. >> Yes. Thank you. >> And u Mr. Chair uh chairman um I think it would behoove you all to swear us in
as well. I was not sworn in last time and uh um I think Victor had been sworn in. >> Well, that's all right. You're right, Jim. We'll swear everybody. All right. So, >> because when I may I may be interjecting when uh uh Mr. Kamalik uh pro provides
his testimony. So, >> okay. >> Fair enough. So, Mr. PCEL, Mr. on a CK Mr. Bridger and we've already sworn to Mr. Leco. Do you all swear affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. I do. >> Thank you.
>> As as we indicated, we have additions to the slides that were presented last time. They were set up as exhibit A1. If this was could be A2, we could and we could share it. I think we're ready to begin.
>> Okay, please begin. Uh, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Kamalik. Go ahead, Jim. You're ready. >> Mr. Mr. Torino, Mr. Kamalik has testified before this board previously. Do you want to just qualify him very
briefly? And >> my my mistake. My mistake. I'm sorry. >> Jim, you've testified routinely before the board. You are licensed uh uh as an engineer and as a professional planner in the state of New Jersey and those licenses are active.
>> Yes, that's correct. >> You've been involved in the preparation of this site plan and discuss the details with staff. >> Yes, I have. >> Mr. Chairman, >> I have he's testified before us before. I have no problem with him serving as an expert.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Good evening, everyone. Um this is our site plan here. on our color rendering. Um, and as you can see on the left hand side of the page, we have uh Harrison Street. And I'd like to point
you to the existing access uh driveway apron um in in gray uh where vehicles enter and exit the site and they come onto the site in the existing condition predominantly in the same general
location. So, that apron will be um plus or minus in that same general location and then lead to a 20 foot drive aisle that will access proposed parking stalls that will be on the first level uh or
the ground floor level um of a covered uh rather interior uh geared parking area that's consists of seven parking stalls. And as you may have heard at the last meeting, the new building would be
located um a portion of that above that covered parking area. So in terms of um the existing parking lot previously consisted of uh approximately 15 parking stalls and in
the proposed condition that is being uh reduced to seven parking stalls. As you can see here on the plan, we are providing an ADA parking stall in the middle of the parking lot where you can see is highlighted by the striped access area. That ADA stall will be provided
with um EV charging capability as well as its adjacent stall. So, we have two EV charging uh parking stalls and then we've also included a um two compact stalls at the very end of the parking um
area that's on the left hand side as you enter the site. Okay. And this is again completely under the new addition. The um remainder of the footprint as previously discussed would be interior building area. That's the central. I
don't know, Daniel, if you could highlight with a uh a little marker as we go through this. You can see the uh proposed footprint of that new building, the new separate building in orange. And in the center, we have an access doorway to a lobby. And then there's a secondary
entrance along a new sidewalk that would be constructed in between the existing building and the new building. Um there were comments previously that um that sidewalk should be upgraded in width to
5 foot wide and we have uh modified the exhibit so that we provide for that 5- foot wide sidewalk from the Harrison Street frontage um across to this entrance where we have um bike parking
at that main entrance that would be covered and then that 5-ft sidewalk if We highlight that as it proceeds uh to the right of your screen. Um it'll accesses an enclosure for recycling and
trash as well as four additional um parking stalls for four additional uh bicycles. Uh on this exhibit, we've also shown that the existing building will not be modified or touched. And we've also highlighted
um on our plan a a preservation area which would encompass uh the sideyard along Harrison Street adjacent to the existing building and then the entire frontage um of the existing building along Nassau Street so that that viewscape can be can
be retained. On this exhibit too, we are providing some additional landscaping components. Um you can see some of the existing trees are highlighted and then we'll provide some um lower story uh shrubs
consisting of Bar Harbor Juniper uh along the Harrison Street frontage as foundation plantings. We have one tree in that northwest corner um along Harrison Street due to its decaying condition that's proposed to be replaced.
And additionally, just to note, forward looking into Mr. Doberilsk's letter, he recommended um that we replace one of the trees along the Harrison Street frontage adjacent to the existing building. Okay.
Just due to health concerns of that tree. were certainly willing to do that. And then there were a couple trees along the common property line along the north boundary um that uh based upon their condition and um
condition based on disease and some infestation that they should they should come down um as part of this project. So we would comply with all those recommendations on our property uh that Mr. Dobermillski made. Uh secondly,
>> wait, excuse me, Mr. Camel. The two trees on the northern boundary that are shown on this drawing, are they on your property or the adjacent property? >> They they pretty much span the property line. >> So, are they going to come down or are
they going to stay? >> They're proposed to come down. Um Mr. Dr. Dolberilski made that recommendation for those trees to come down just based upon these unique um constraints and their location and their proximity to the improvements
>> because the adjacent the adjacent driveway butts right up against the property line at that location. >> So you'll discuss the landscaping >> in that area, any new landscaping proposed? We're not proposing any new landscaping at that location. And the
the reason being is that um the curb line, which would be uh basically a little increased curb height along that property line, is only a foot off the property line, number one. And then number two, we're dealing
with this access way, which comes in close proximity on the north side uh to that property line. So uh any additional landscape area is extremely limited just due to the fact that we're staying away
from the existing building which we don't want to touch. Then we have our pedestrian access way and then we have our footprint for the proposed building. We're trying as best we can to maximize the drive aisle and then we're meeting the requirements for the 18 ft uh depth
parking stall. So um from a geometric constraint, we just don't have the available area for additional landscaping at that location. However, and I will talk about it in more detail. Um we do have a privacy measure that we
can implement which is advocated by the ordinance when there is insufficient um width for landscaping with um a fence element. and we have a couple options for that that the board can look at and see which one they prefer at that location.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Okay. Let's I think let's go to the next slide. Okay. So, in the in the uh zoning and engineering memo, there were a couple of storm water management comments that were made and I think um the intent here
is just to go over um these to get them out of the way. And one was uh while on on-site storm water management is not required for this development uh the standards for drywell should be applied for the relocated dry well. There's an
existing drywell on the property that will necessitate relocation within the parking lot due to the location of the proposed building. Okay. And the existing parking lot like
I said before it was 15 parking stalls with bays on both side. Now it's only it's been reduced to seven. Um and in addition, I think the concern here was that only uh water from the roof would be connected to the dry
well and we will comply with that. That's the intention is for that roof water to be connected to the dry well. And I would just point out in the existing condition, there is a dry well and the surface water from the parking lot all drains to the drive well in the
existing condition. So the fact that we'll be installing basically a clean roof over almost the entirety of the previously existing parking area will maintain the water quality of that rainwater. It'll be
intercepted by the roof. it'll be conveyed to the dry wells and then we would provide an overflow for that as well. So all in all, we're going to see a net increase in the water quality conditions based upon what we've proposed um for this modification for
the new plan. >> Excuse me. What is the existing drive aisle with? Um, I believe it's closer to 24, but I can just check that for you.
It's approximately 25 ft in the existing condition. >> 25 >> 25 with parking on both sides. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Uh demonstrate why a connection to the municipal storm sewer system is not provided. And we indicated and I um did
discuss this with Mr. Mr. forcell. Currently, the way that that parking lot drains is the ultimate outfall for that is to the Nassau Street frontage. Um, and NJ DOT does have jurisdiction over
the storm drainage as well as new connections and flows into their system. So the idea here and the concept is to maintain the existing drainage pattern and maintain that flow for ultimate discharge into the Nassau Street right
ofway. Um to further enhance that, we did provide an option for an overflow drain uh within the rightway along Harrison Street by the driveway apron should that be necessary. And we've included that in our plan. Um
so that's the reason why we don't have um any additional connections to the m municipal uh or the storm water system that's uh in and around the site. Uh number two, the site plan does not indicate how parking lot runoff is
collected or treated. It's preferable that this runoff be treated prior to discharge to the municipal storm water. Uh, and as I mentioned before, the significant water quality improvement with the new building uh, and the roof intercepting water that previously
um got more polluted, for lack of a better word, by hitting the uh, existing parking lot that's being intercepted. and the small area that's beyond the limit of the proposed building addition um will be certainly outweighed by
increasing the water quality of intercepting all that water and connecting it to the dry wells. Number three, the roof area shall be pre-treated with leaf screens, flush diverters, etc. And we'll certainly provide that if this is approved as a
condition on the revised plan. And then lastly, a drain was proposed in the area of the outdoor uh trash and recycling enclosure which is at the end of the sidewalk at the very end of that pedestrian sidewalk to the right. Uh
applicant should describe how this is to be protected from organic waste spillage from that trash area. Uh we did discuss this uh with Mr. per cell. And we're proposing in order to address that um
particular drain adding a water quality sump component so that um if any materials are collected within that drain or inlet that they fall within the lower area of that inlet which is below the outlet. Um and then that can be
inspected periodically and also cleaned and maintained um as part of our storm water management plan. Uh so that that was a way that we thought we could address that concern by adding a water quality element to that.
Jim, I don't know if you have any comments on >> Yeah. No, I um if if it's okay, I I would like to uh um state that uh all of all of what Jim has just said um uh are acceptable to us uh and the
municipality. Um we did have a meeting with uh Mr. Kamalik and discussed all of these solutions and they do alleviate our concerns about storm water runoff. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, there were a couple more
items on the municipal letter that future improvements to the sidewalk along the Harrison fre Harrison Street frontage will be undertaken in approximately a year. We certainly agree to coordinate our plan with the municipality so that they can dovetail
together at the appropriate time. Um the sidewalks are being widened to 5T and we agree with that. Our plan indicates that at this point. And then there was a a request for a couple
additional canopy downlight fixtures um within the interior parking area near the entry just to increase the lighting levels of that. And we'll certainly add a couple more uh fixtures in the ceiling of that parking area to comply with that
comment. All right. uh bicycle parking. Uh section 204 requires bike bicycle parking to be accessible without another bicycle needing to to move. We did provide uh some supplemental exhibits just showing a slightly um reorientation
of those bicycles on a 45 degree angle along with um some uh bicycle loops uh in between. And you know based upon that layout uh we would be able to uh somebody would be able to put a bicycle
in and then also secure it fully and lock it up to that bicycle loop so that um those exterior bicycles would be fully secure. And as I mentioned before, um the required bicycle parking consists of 15
total required uh parking spaces. Eight of which need to have um that be covered or have that roof uh enclosure. Actually, let me clarify that. That's 11 are required to have that. We are providing that by
means of eight by that entry along the pedestrian sidewalk and then another three within the interior of the building and then the four additional stalls are down at the far end of the parking area that I highlighted previously. So just in total we did um
take a look at that standard number one and then this exhibit illustrates what I just talked about that slight reorientation the fact that we're providing all of the bike parking that is necessary and then in that lower leftand corner of this exhibit which may
have been the s source of confusion perhaps in Justin's memo of oh is there another bike parking stall there if that was the area of concern Daniel, if you could just highlight that lower left hand corner. That was just a uh groundmounted little
bike parking directional sign to alert pedestrians with bicycles to the direction to which they can store their bikes. Okay. So, that was a two-sided just ground mount uh birectional sign because that is a that was a request in
one of the comment letters. Um, so we feel confident about the bike parking. Uh, this slide to go back to Mr. Cohen's comment about um what's going to happen along the common
property line. The above photograph is an illustration of what that condition looks like today with a solid privacy fence at the property line. On the other side of the fence, there's approximately a 12- foot wide uh vehicular travel
driveway. It's a one-way driveway on that um the podiatrist use uh lot next door. It's a commercial office. Um you can see that there are uh several arborite um that still exist on the property.
They're not in great shape. Several of them have deteriorated and and no longer exist. Um but in coordination with the neighbors um and some of their input,
we took some time and um made a careful selection of what would be a very uh tightly spaced uh painted aluminum picket fence uh that could go along that property line and
provide um for that buffering element within the only narrow space that we have available. And as you can see um with a closer spacing of those pickets when you look at uh you look at it at at that angle which is what you would basically see if you were standing
within the public rightway looking down the neighbor's driveway. You know you would basically see this type of uh appearance of that open uh picket fence. Okay. Okay. So, given the historic context of the lot and trying to make
everything fit in with the elements on this particular property, um the Save Jug Town folks thought that this would be a preferred solution for um a privacy element between the two properties. And we provided these details to them. We
gave them, you know, additional clarity on dimensions, etc. It would be a six foot high fence. Uh and they were happy with that. This would be mounted on top of um the curb wall that goes along that property line.
What do we have next, Daniel? So, this is the location of what I just showed you. That green uh privacy fence highlighted in green. It wraps around to the front edge of the building a 90° and then it follows the property line and the drive aisle all the way to the back
and then wraps the back corner. As an alternative, if the board felt that um they didn't want, and again, this is an interior parking area that's enclosed by the building with a roof over it. They didn't want any visibility
at all. We could always do a solid fence instead of a more historically oriented painted aluminum fence that you just saw. And here are a couple details of what that would look like. Okay. Again, um this would be a a PVC
fence with a color to suit, but it would be fully solid and 6t high and it would be mounted on top of the proposed curb wall. Okay. So, this is an option that when the board is looking at this this property line, you know, we have two
choices here um to go if if you wanted to consider this solid option. What do we have next? Okay. And then just to summarize, um although the new um AHO2 zone uh does
require u a buffering element along the property line, we just wanted to point out the fact that the underlying burrow zoning ordinance um does not define this parking area of seven stalls
as a parking lot because it is less than 10 spaces. Therefore, um the standard planting strips of a minimum of 4 ft wide, uh if this wasn't in the AH2 zone, um a planting buffer strip would not be
required at all just based upon the operation of your regular zoning ordinance. Um, but I just would point out that the adjacent property from a sensitivity standpoint consists of an access driveway that's paved right next to it and then a commercial building
right next to that. So, from a sensitivity standpoint, we don't see any um substantial detriment to um the type of fence that we're talking about. Plus, this section of the ordinance says if it's impractical to provide landscaping
that you could incorporate a fence element instead if that works better. So, there is an open door for what we're proposing. >> So, that was it. That was it on the engineering drawings and testimony. If you had questions of Jim, we could do it
now or we could do it later. >> Board members, any questions of Mr. Kamalik? I have a real quick question um about the fencing. The fencing would be on the applicant's property and the fence
that's there right now that just stays >> because it's not really on your property or >> uh the fence that's there now would be removed. It's deteriorating and out of plum and it just needs to come down. So, the proposed condition would be a nice,
clean, straight new fence. And yes, it would be on the applicant's property. >> Okay. And the current fence is on your property, too. >> Let me just take a close look at the property line because like many existing sites, fences tend to meander.
Jim, it's worth noting too that um the owner uh in the rear that owns a podiatrist building, I've talked to him and he's happy to have that fence come down and replace along with those dead trees that are a liability as well. So, if it does overlap at some point, I do
have his blessing to go ahead and put a new fence there. He said he'd be more than happy to do that, but you can obviously double check, >> right? Yeah. I mean, the plans indicate that a decent extent is just slightly beyond the property line and then it
comes onto our property slightly, but um the intent is for that to come down. And again, like Daniel said, um that's something that can be worked out as a condition of approval with the neighboring property owner. >> And Dan, for the record, um we'd probably want to see something in
writing, uh an agreement between you and your neighbor. >> Be fine. Okay. Thanks board members. Any other questions >> or three? >> Okay. I'm sorry.
>> Yeah, there are some hands up. >> Go ahead. >> Who's next? >> No, you have hands up. Um the um the trees in the in this illustration I I'm I'm fairly certain the ones that are
shown to be behind the building or not what's actually they're not there. But are the ones that are in the front is is the vegetation in the front um accurate as far as what's Yeah, I know that you'd said that things would not be touched in
the front. Are those actually is that represent what's actually there? It generally represents what's there. And let me just point out that Daniel, if you could just highlight that one tree that's behind the white car.
Okay, that particular tree exists. And that was the one where Mr. Doberilski recommended, hey, just given the close proximity and a sidewalk going in and disturbance to the root ball, why don't we um replace that tree in that location
with something that's going to be more suitable for the long term? So, our thought would be to replace that with a replacement tree at that location so that, you know, it has a a bright future, >> but it's it's a smaller tree. It's not
as um tall as the one along the frontage which those will stay. >> We can condition that on a uh on approval by Mr. Dolmaki when you make a suggestion. >> But I'm I'm right that what's behind the building is not actually there. Right.
In real life, >> there are I I would say that there are a few trees that's probably reflective of a couple of the trees that are along the common property line behind the applicant's property uh and along the
common driveway of the fence area that we had just talked about. So that's those trees are telling telling that story. Um there's nothing that there's nothing that high that would come up above the building, right? And there's no canopy. Like they're in
such bad shape. It's not this nice canopy that's shown here, >> right? >> You know. >> Yeah. >> I I think that could just we should just say that that's a nice that looks good, but that's not the way it is, >> right? >> I think that's an accurate statement.
>> Good. >> Okay. There's another board member. I don't have everybody up on my screen, so >> Yeah. I I had a question as we talk about the fence and the um the podiatrist.
Is there any discussions um and this a question for uh staff andor the applicant of that adjacent property being redeveloped into
something more or different? Is there any any discussions regarding that or >> go ahead. >> I I can take that one. Yeah, that property is in our fourth round plan to be redeveloped. Okay. Then
you know speaking and it may never get redeveloped but uh speaking like you know the impact of the fence um should be viewed just in relative to what's there now. If there's plans for what's
there now not being there. I think that should be considered or the fence could be changed down the road. I I just want a clarification. >> Yeah. And I think possibly in the future when that site is redeveloped, um consideration could be taken into
account if this this is approved, the fence that goes up and perhaps an additional element at that future date as part of that site on that property, but I think it's a good point. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Next.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Mr. Kamalik, thanks for clarifying about that bike parking sign. Um, I'm going to make the comment that I always make when people ask for car parking variances. Uh, but are there any opportunities here
to go above the requirement um for bike parking? And you kind of put it different way. I think that sign mentioning the bike parking is going to be a good place to lock your bike um for a lot of people. So, is there any
opportunity particularly with the tree the existing tree being removed over there to add additional racks? >> Well, I I guess I would say number one, we have a lot of constraints here >> as everybody can see and we also did
make some modifications to increase the width of the sidewalk between the existing building and the new building. So, um, what what I'm getting at is that there are some limits on imperous coverage that we're dealing with.
>> Um, and we need to be sensitive to that. So, we don't have available impervious coverage where we can increase beyond what we're showing you today um to provide parking there. And I'll just add above and beyond that that that was an
area of sensitivity that the Save Jug Towns were concerned about relative to viewscape of the side of the existing building to the extent that they were careful enough to ask us to maintain the existing landscaping that's in and
around um the the AC the AC units that are there and that end of the building. they really didn't want the viewscape of that changing and they were sensitive to that. Um so I think that if we did construct additional elements in that
spot it might fly in the face of um sort of maintaining that viewscape of the existing building. >> Okay, understood. But I mean, I still think uh you know, there are some um uh signs in front of the building that again might end up being ones that people park their bike to uh or lock
their bike to, which is, you know, even more of a problem for the view of the building. Um and and just a another general comment that I don't mean as a gotcha one, that's just kind of coming to my mind now. Since this building does not have an elevator, um do you think
people will be able to maneuver a bike to the upper floors in the stairs or or not? >> Carrying obviously. >> Well, I would think certain people would have the ability like to do that and probably those folks that are aged may
not have that ability, but we are providing >> covered parking for for them specifically in these other areas. So, I think that um there would be the availability to store bikes inside their units, which would increase bike storage,
>> but we still have ground storage, which would help those folks that can't do that. >> Yep. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Were Justin, were you asking whether or not it was just not never mind whether someone could lift it? Forget that. But >> yeah, >> is it why is it big? Is it
>> exactly physically? could you carry a bike up and around the stairs? >> And maybe that's a question for um Miss Rabbina when she does her testimony. She might be able to comment on that. >> Okay. >> Why don't we have Marina start right in?
>> All right. Well, hopefully you guys can hear me. Okay. And um thank you for everybody to be here and um listen >> I I'm so sorry Miss Rabbina again do you want to qualify Miss Rabina? >> I I apologize. I thought we did it last
month but let's quickly do it again. You got your architecture degree from Berkeley in California and you're a registered architect in California and in New Jersey and you're a licensed planner in New Jersey. All of those certifications active. Yes sir.
>> And you participated in the design and supervised the design of this building. >> That is correct. >> Okay. We'll accept Mino as an expert. >> Excellent. Thank you. Um so I would like to um describe the slightly unusual role
of an architect in the context of this um site design which I think is uh for those of us who are architects in this room was very interesting because it was a little more than designing stairs and bathrooms and residential units but more
of an orchestrating a great team of um professionals, neighbors um everybody who came together to make this design what it really is today and um people who deeply care about the
history and this location. And I think that um this drawing over here came to kind of identify what we arrived at through a various number of iterations that I'm not even going to remember how
many options we have gone through. Uh but I think what it really came down to is how do we um balance creation of homes on this property but also being respectful and allowing the existing
building to remain as it is. So, as just to refresh everybody's mind, um the existing building is remaining untouched and we're staying away from it a respectable distance so that the foundation won't be impacted. There
won't be anything done to it. And as Jim indicated, even the landscaping is being preserved, and we're being careful not to impact the building by placing sort of new features next to it. And then we
worked really closely um with our team making what was really important for the constructibility of this project and working with the neighbors to sort of balance the inside and the outside. So the outside of the building is very much
inspired um encouraged by what we the feedback and the information that we have received from our neighbors. And it was really important to them that the certain setbacks were maintained that the certain height was maintained that a
certain horizontality and sort of uniform appearance of the building was maintained. But at the same time, we found that the um examples provided by our neighbors were very much
on one hand, they represented other similar buildings in the neighborhood, but they were also uh not mimicking and not creating confusion between what is old and what is new. And hopefully at the end of the presentation um the safe juck down folks will show the examples
that they provided us. And we really believe that uh we were able to really take to heart what they were asking us to do and at the same time work really closely because we were staying away from the existing building. What we were
really trying to do is make the building itself incredibly efficient. So we have a single stair building where there's a central core where there are ground floor units, second floor units, and third floor units. And by creating a
building that has four units per floor maximum, we're allowed to have a single stair. And we are not creating additional square footage or additional space or additional volume on the site. That would just make the building bulkier and not add to anybody's
enjoyment of life. So we are very careful and very efficient. So to the point of can somebody carry bicycle upstairs? I probably won't be able to. But um it's a um reasonably wide
staircase. And what we did try to do even though it's a very efficient building, we did try to make landings a little bit larger. So if I were to be able to lift this bicycle, then you could turn it around on the landing. Maybe somebody has a really light
bicycle. So, uh that that would be the hope. Um so the intention here was to keep the building size as small as possible but also at the same time create the maximum amount of living space that
people could be enjoying. And I think then um did I cover everything that I was supposed to cover on this slide? Am I missing anything, Daniel? Yes. So this slide is the slide from our historic preservation meeting at the
very first time that we met. We went to a concept review and um one of our neighbors Clifford Zinc has written a book about Chuck Town. So, I don't know if you guys have received copies, but we certainly have. And where he talks about a variety of different people who live
here and who work here, people who had various jobs, various incomes, but also I found this picture that um is really near and dear to my heart that Jugtown used to have a band. So, this is a picture from the historical society of
Princeton. This is the Jugtown band. And I hope that the beginning of the development of this site is the start of bringing people back here who could not just go shop there at this location and go work at this location but live there
and bring back a community of people who can hopefully have a band together who are going to be living in our building but also the surrounding neighbors. So it's very interesting that we presented this idea at our very very very first historic preservation concept review
where we asked our neighbors to bring us their suggestions and ideas and here we are have come full circle being able to incorporate those ideas. So interesting way to use architecture but the hope is this architecture is about building
community. So hopefully that explains how we got here and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Marina. Um, okay. Uh, good evening everyone. My name is Daniel Barski. Um, I'm just
going to jump right into my my portion of the presentation. At the last meeting, I testified that there were some off-site parking leases that I was able to secure in advance. I have provided these to staff for their review. One of these properties is on 14
North Harrison Street, which is directly across the street on a property that I own. Uh, and I have three empty spaces available there. I currently rent them out to other people. Um, but I would certainly utilize them for myself for
this site. Uh, the other two sites have a combined aid spaces. Uh, these other sites are in the fourth round affordable housing plan. Uh, but it's unclear when they'll be developed. uh they currently have available parking and they are
willing to rent uh spaces to me and they've um given me these letters of intent to uh acknowledge that. But more importantly, as illustrated in this slide, there is an abundance of parking in the immediate vicinity.
Basically, you can see on the slide, just a whole lot of parking lots. Uh we count over 180 spaces within one block of 344 Nassau Street, which is the red star. These spaces are constantly being rented or others renting out spaces, as
I currently do on 344 Nassau Street. Uh, Bank of America, for instance, will rent out spaces, but they do not provide a letter of intent, and they won't give me a lease until I start paying for the spaces,
which I won't need for a few years. So, from some communication with surrounding businesses and owners, um, there are people and businesses that are willing to rent spaces once I'm ready. I have secured some that are available right
now and a few that I know will be available in the future. Uh but really, you know, this slide just illustrate the uh a lot of parking here in this area. >> Most at the last meeting, what Mr. >> I did I
>> Excuse me. I said most of that parking is private parking. It's not public parking. >> Yes, that's accurate. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, at the last meeting I didn't have quite enough time to go over uh the Princeton Environmental Commission memo,
so I'd like to now. Uh, I'll briefly go over it. I've highlighted in yellow the key words just to make it easier to follow. And my responses are in green. So, uh, basically I've broken out the responses to yes, I can comply or I'll investigate something I can't commit to
at this very moment. So, use bird friendly glass or film. I'll look into it. I I can't commit to it at the moment. Same with using locally sourced wood. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for that. Um so I can look into it, but it's not something I can
commit to. Um they ask for EV charging stations to be installed, and as Jim testified, we will do that. Use rapidly renewable materials. Um yes, we'll attempt to do that. Um they're asking to install heat pump, HVAC, and hot water
equipment. Um, I do this on a lot of my projects when PSCG can bring in the right amount of power for me because uh they draw up a lot of loads uh of amperage. So, uh if it's a possibility,
it's something that I will look into. >> How are you planning on heating and cooling the units? >> Natural gas. >> Natural gas. >> Natural gas is >> Yeah, natural gas is where I start. I prefer the heat pump units myself, but
in some instances in the past I've come across where I've wanted to do it and PSG just simply says there's not enough juice to get you 10 heat pump units for this location. >> If you went with natural gas with electric air, I assume you'd have
condensers somewhere. Yes, they're on the rooftop >> and Okay, if you were to do that, you I would suggest you'd want to screen those. >> Yeah, where they're located is um actually like right in the center of uh
the new building. And um I can go back to those slides, but as I illustrated in some sight lines that were drawn up by the architect, uh you wouldn't be able to see them from either road for for where we located them on the rooftop. Is there a parapit around the building?
>> There is. There's a one foot parapit. >> Okay. Yeah. Do we have that drawing that shows the sightelines? >> We do. Would you like me to scroll back to it? >> It's all right. And we have it in our packets. >> Uh, no. It's part of my presentation
that I showed last time, but I'm happy to pull it back up. >> Yes, please. So just for reference, this is where the condensers are suggested to be located. >> Okay. >> So um you know and plus with the one
foot parapit these really won't be seen. Um and here's one of the sight lines that I pulled up. you won't even from Nassau Street on either side of the sidewalk. You won't even see the top of the building um and
clears the condensers as well. >> And strategically put in the middle so that uh they clear from all sides. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um and so that goes to your next point. Mechanical units on the roof cannot be
seen. We just talked about that. Um, install interior solar shades. I'll look into it. Um, but I can't commit to it at this moment. Uh, plumbing fixtures should have a water sense label. That's simple enough. I can provide those.
Uh, permeable pavers used to use permeable pavers on the interior walkway between the buildings. um you know those permeable pavers would be abudding the existing house which does have a basement and um
there's really no good place for that water to go and the concern is that it would flood that basement out. Um porous asphalt should be used in the garage. Uh Jim already testified uh to why we've designed it the way we have. Um that you know they're asking to provide a rooftop
patio. That's just not possible. uh use best practices in providing ebike stations. Um that that's acceptable. We can do that. Avoid using redless materials. Uh same, we can do that. Supply units with an energy recovery ventilator. Um not something I'm
intending to do, but I can certainly look into it. Um provide a pergola with vegetation over the northern section of the parking garage. And with my discussions with Jim, he says it's really not practical. nothing is really going to take uh or grow in that small
strip there. And the last comment is for the concrete to be recycled, which um we can do as well. And um what we did hear from the chair of the HPC last time um they did have some items of their own and we will
comply with all of them. They actually want us to expand the preservation area to cover the rear of the existing building and uh that's fine. Um, they asked for some additional details uh for the lobby canopy and the ground floor exterior wall treatment. I
I've already submitted that to them and that was incorporated in the drawing submitted to the zoning board. Um, Elizabeth at the time asked that an alternate tree be planted to the Washington Hawthorne. Um, you know, I
leave it up to the board to decide, but I think the simple answer is just to defer to Dan Doilski's recommendations on what to do with that tree in that location. Um, but as >> but as applicant, I'm I'm I'm fine either way to take the zoning board's
recommendation on that. Um part of um our discussions with Save Jugtown and historical preservation committee was before we do excavation work to do um ground penetrating radar survey in case there's some kind of historic relics
there so that they can be taken up and preserved and we did agree to do that with them and we plan on honoring that. Um and the last one is revise the plans to reflect the color of the proposed building to match the existing building.
And uh we can do that as well. And um so lastly uh before I hand over the presentation to my planner Mr. Rancamp um I like to sum summarize the
uh memos into what I'm calling actionable comments. So that means comments that I can take action on and revise the drawings um as part of resolution compliance because there's a lot of comments to testify to and we did a lot of that at the last meeting and
I'm happy to answer more questions not anything specific but as far as a actionable comments um uh apply we will comply with all the zoning engineering comments and I've actually listed the specific
um what I'm considering actionable comments here under each one of these memos. Same with the landscape memo. We will comply with all the actionable comments and I listed all the items. Um Jim did bring to my attention right before the meeting. There is one comment
uh from Dando Ramilski about removing trees on a neighboring lot. You know, I don't have the authority to do that. Um uh and I'm happy to try to coordinate with this third party, which isn't the one, not the podiatrist owner, but a
different property owner. I can try to swing them in, but it's not something I can go take down trees on there a lot. Um same with traffic engineering. We'll comply with all the actionable comments. One of them was about a left turn only out of the parking lot, whether it
should be time of day restricted uh or just no left turn only. Uh I leave it up to the board to decide um or the traffic consultant. And um um either way, we can comply with those. And >> Dan, if I can interrupt on that one. The
municipality is currently designing improvements to North Harrison Street and left turns uh will not be permitted because there will be a um a physical median uh in the middle of North
Harrison Street at that location and physically impossible to make a left turn. So that would mean people coming down Harrison Street wouldn't make be able to make a left into the building as well. I assume >> that's correct. >> Wow.
>> Okay. >> Also that should say no left turn only, but I think a medium will stop anybody from doing that. Um and uh same with the planning memo. We will comply with all the actionable comments. I listed them here below.
and PEC we just went over. Um I can comply with they actually they don't number their their recommendations but I number it for them um and they're listed here below. And then on the rest of the items I can't commit to them as part of
resolution compliance but I'll certainly look into them. And so lastly is just a quick summary of things left to be determined. Um the rear fence material selection. I think save Jugtown
um would be sad to have a a solid fence going there. Uh for regard, you know, especially with the historical nature of the property and we have heard Jim's testimony about tight slats and the impact to neighbors there. Uh the time of day restriction that's no longer like
Jim brought to our attention is doesn't really need to be decided. Keep the Washington Hawthorne tree or replace it. HPC and Doberilski's memo are in conflict. Um and I did provide a parking management plan to staff and I believe you guys have that. Um this question
came up um at the last hearing. Uh, one of the spaces will be reserved for the affordable um for the affordable unit. >> Well, you it says here the affordable three-bedroom unit. >> Yeah, this is from
>> So, if it's not a threebedroom unit, if it's a twobedroom unit, will that go to the two-bedroom unit? >> It would go to the two-bedroom unit. It one of two the two bedroom >> twobedroom affordable unit. Yes, correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. One of the two. >> One of the two. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Um and uh I'd like to uh pass a presentation on to my planner Rancamp to provide his testimony. Now >> Michael, do you have a question?
>> Yeah, I I have a few questions. um restricted to um the parking and um environmental. I think the one uh related to environmental I I think in
the past I believe that's where it was raised that you responded. They had asked that the building be leadcertified and I think your response was sort of if if there's money in the
budget it's but at this point you don't think you can afford it. Is that still the case? Um do you recall that? >> Yeah. Marina, are you online here?
I'm here. Yes. >> There's a lead lead certification >> lead certifications I mean we're we're using high high efficiency 19. I mean we may we may be real close anyway but I'm not I don't know all the nuances of >> Okay. >> Yeah. So lead certification I I am a
lead certified professional. So um lead certification consists of multiple requirements as we all know. So you can meet the requirements on the checklist but still not be leadcertified if you don't go through a proper
procedure which requires hiring a separate consultant that will help you get through the process. So I am assuming what Daniel mentioned um previously that he will not be seeking formal certification but he will try to
hit as many points on the lead checklist as possible as he has gone through in his presentation. And a lot of these points in the lead certification ask you to uh be close to transit um and do certain things that are common
sense that he's doing already anyway. Thank you, Marina. >> Uh, Daniel, while you have this slide up and before Craig talks, did you want to just note that it shows two two bedrooms downstairs? >> Yeah, but I want to elaborate a little
bit because like we said, this kind of this newest new revision that Justin found came up um, you know, within the last 24 hours. But uh since that time um you know we heard at the last meeting
that this twobedroom in the back was less desirable because of its proximity to the trash enclosure. So were the applicant is is willing to commit this twobedroom this would be excuse me this
okay now I need to find it. We had so many iterations of affordable units here. Um >> I think the slide that you were on right there with the Yeah, that is the perfect
>> So this this twobedroom unit is the one that we would um commit to having as affordable. And instead of having the second twobedroom affordable on the first floor, we would move it up to the third
floor. which is right here. So this way we would have um separated the units so that they're on separate floors and put them in, you know, mixed locations.
Uh Daniel, I have a question about the first floor one. >> Sure. Uh, and I know there's been uh, like you said, many iterations of this, but we had a comment uh, in the planners report uh, just about what's going on with the staircase there. Is that
from a previous iteration? >> No, there is a closet under the stair. >> Oh, okay. That's what that's showing. Okay, understood. >> Yep. regarding if I could regarding the u twobedroom move to the
third floor which I actually don't have I don't have a problem with that at all. I I think past discussions were from your uh uh consultant was why it should
be on both on the first floor. um my experience although he didn't give the reasons I believe you put them on the first floor those those reasons don't even exist here and those reasons are normally you try to have as many kids as
possible not on the upper floors when there's long hallways that they turn into playgrounds on you know six sevenstory uh double load hallways um you don't have that here. So, I don't
have to worry about that. You also a lot of times like to have families on the first floor because kids sometimes ride elevators as a toy and the elevators break down a little sooner. We don't
have elevators here. Um, and lastly, having it on the first floor, it's usually nice to have immediate access to open space for the kids. There is no open space on the first floor. Um,
there is a parking lot which you don't really want them to have direct access to. So I think the argument for the first floor for affordables with kids is
is not valid. So I'm I'm okay to see it going up on a third floor. I am actually a big supporter of families on the lower floors, but there was those reasons aren't here. Um,
now if if I go to the parking leases before you move on to your planner since you brought them up, um, you know, looking at the lease for 14 North Harrison, which I guess is the Merl
Lynch building, I just a question in item one that lease says that uh the uh tenant understands um it is their responsibility to call
the police to ticket cars. Can the municipal police force ticket cars on private property? >> I mean I'm not sure why it says that they typically >> Okay. >> But they will they will enforce handicap on private lots but they typically won't
get involved in other matters. >> Yeah. I know um another developer had the problem with the handicaps where Yeah. even though they didn't have a handicap person in the building. Uh other people parking there got tickets.
Um fine. Um >> uh Mr. Floyd, can I just jump in real quick to note something for the record? >> Yeah. Uh that parcel, just for the record, um came to the planning board about a year ago. Um and they required, I believe, parking variances. So, from a
regulatory side, um that one is parked. Uh but as I think Daniel mentioned before, um he owns it and he knows the number of spaces there that are being used. >> Actually, we didn't need any parking variances, but Justin is right to say that if one was taken away, it would
trigger a variant. So, um but yeah, there is available parking at uh at that building. >> Okay. Yeah. And I I wasn't questioning that, but it's uh availability. Um just that police ticketing. I didn't
know if that was feasible. Moving to uh 245 Nassau, which is the same form lease. So, um no other questions on that. just for me
that property is, you know, a a farther away. And for those that don't know, it's a property that's across from the IVN. If that helps lower it, that's a bit too far for me. Lastly,
so I have concern on that 366 which is really close by, but I note that the non-binding letter of intent specifies that it will be monthtomonth
whereas the other two were were year leases. now monthtomonth especially well for any of the tenants that use it uh but especially the
affordable tenants who will have trouble you know finding elsewhere that doesn't work at all for me you know for me I'd like to see at least a year lease on and if you find a
substitute property so parking is still pro problematic for those. >> Yeah, I I I I happen to agree with you. If you have a tenant that requires off-site parking and they have a year lease, you would want their parking
arrangement to match their lease terms. And I I guess to my testimony is that there's a lot of parking around. It's just people don't want to give me leases until I start paying them monthly fees, which I'm far away from requiring uh if
I ever need them at all. And so there's a lot of parking around. I provided you what I had, but ideally we would look for um spots that match the lease term for a year. And in a lot of instances, if a month-to-month ends, there's other
opportunities elsewhere to move parking around just because of the amount of parking. But your points taken. >> Yeah. Um, thank you. Um, >> you know, so I've I've trouble getting comfortable with that. I've I've read and thought about and
made notes on the on the management plan itself. Um, you know, I I appreciate the effort and I think you recognize how I believe you do how hard it is and this will be.
Maybe you'll end up with a lot of options. I haven't I haven't seen them or they're not nailed down, but I think this is a real shell game type of and coordination thing. And
quite honestly, I'm I'm not sold on the parking management plan. And I say that also recognizing that this is was a raised concern by staff.
You know, it's not something I'm just harping on or um whether it be the leases or the management plan. And honestly, I'm not there on either one. >> Would it be Mr. Barski? Would it be uh
possible to reserve two of the three, possibly four residential spaces for the uh for the affordable units? Who would probably be the people with the least number of options?
>> Reserve how many spaces for affordable? >> One for each one. One for each unit. You have you have four. We have three possibly four res four residential cars on the lot. Um can you can you designate two of
those for the affordable units? >> I mean um equitably there's more parking going towards affordable than market units as is with one space. I I would prefer to have some whatever limit of
parking is here that's on site for some of the market units plus two for commercial as I stated. Um, but I have other I have other affordable
um, rentals in town and um, Princeton Housing Commission has a a pretty lengthy list of applicants who have no parking demands at all. Um, I'm not to say that I would seek them out, but they're there. Um, I guess the short
answer is if you know if they if the other tenants didn't need them and they were available, I would certainly make them a second space available to the other affordable unit. Or >> or in the alternative, you own the Maril Lynch building across the street,
provide one space there. >> Yeah, I can do that. Yep. So, >> see you have one on site and one at the Maril Lynch building. I don't believe uh if I could cut in that Mr. Barski could do that without getting a variance for that property,
you know, formally. He he can't deed it to go along with this site u because of that one's own parking. Um you know, I misspoke before it didn't get variances, but it's right on the line. >> Sure. Um,
if I could jump back in. Um, number one, I I heard Mr. Barski mention uh long list uh Princeton Housing. Is that the housing authority? Long list of people without cars.
Is that what you were referring to? >> Yeah. The service that fills that helps fill the units that I've contracted with in the past. I think you're talking about PCH, Daniel, as opposed to housing. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Can I ask >> PC? Okay. PCH. Princeton Community Housing. >> Community Housing >> because if if it was Princeton Housing Authority, probably none of those with the Princeton Housing Authority could
income qualify for these units. >> I I misspoke. I apologize. Um, >> yeah, >> another while we're still on on parking and I I really try to understand this um and and get to
a comfort level that I can't seem to get to. Now, the property itself now has 15 parking spaces. Um the original code
for that site um you know requires if I'm understanding correct 13.6 for the office and 15 would have been for 10 residential units for a total of
28.6. But we're doing the AO2, which offers supposedly enough incentives to get to the redevelopment.
Um, which lowers the residential for a 10 unit component down to 5.5 from 15 under the original code. And
that takes in, you know, public transportation, walkability, all the things as a basis for lowering it. Which in my view that
uses up all the rationale that your traffic consultant then wanted to use again to lower the 5.5 reduced number of parking spaces
down to you offering one. And I think that's double dipping on the residential. Um, and therefore I'm stuck with under
AO AO2. The residential should have 5.5 and if I round up it's six. And it seems to me that
at one point you were when you were before the historic preservation, you were I read some of the documents that said none were going to be offered to the office space
and you were going to take care of the residential. Obviously, that has changed and I understand if if I was renting office space from you, I want some parking, too. But I'm I'm at the 5.5
or six for the residential component uh for the um you know that's the reduced number and I I haven't been convinced that and I'm especially
worried about the affordables um because they have less options. I'd hate to be an affordable tenant that offered a unit, but sorry, you can't have a parking space. Um, I raised the same sort of
perspective when a couple three years ago when I think it was next to Nassau Street School, 145 Nassau, I asked the developer, "How are you allocating?
are you giving the affordables 20% of the parking spaces? What are you what are you doing? And he had no idea. He hadn't thought about it all. You have and I appreciate your allegation, but I I think it's not enough. And I I I
really think that you know AO2 would have reduced the combined office residential number to 19.1. I can agree lowering the 13.6 for the
office down to eight or something. I can I can absorb that rationale. But, you know, taking it down to seven combined, um,
it's too little. And I realized that statement and not a question. >> Yeah. Well, I in at our last meeting, I did testify that I have other commercial and residential spaces very similar to this on Nassau Street where there's zero
parking on site and they're constantly rented. It creates naturally occurring affordable housing because I'm not renting the units for as expensive as they would be with parking on site. So, the people who live there have the benefit since they don't have a car of
renting at cheaper rates. Um, Garden State Tile is a commercial space on Nassau Street with zero parking on site and the people that work there, they live in town and they walk to work and so there is a demand for this type of product. Um, and um, there is parking
around uh, and I'm not going to rent a unit to somebody if I can't secure a parking arrangement that matches their lease term. Um, so in that case, I would be renting it with zero parking. And there are there is a demand for these
kind of units in town from my experience um, owning other buildings in the area. re respecting your um experience. I also respect the municip municipalities experts
and the planner at that time was very proud of AO2 being the right zoning concessions and figuring in walkability
and the code in front of me or us AO2 was what the town said hey Let's let's give concessions for walkability. Let's give concessions for people without cars. And this is the code that they
reduced the requirements to. >> Yeah. You funny enough, I my original application was fully compliant with the AHO2. I've >> I've I've made major concessions as a developer. I've lost five units. It's
one-third smaller. so that I can come in handinhand with my neighbors. I mean, typically when I come to the zoning board and they're upset neighbors, a lot of times you guys give us the right instructions. Hey, go back, talk with the neighbors, and come back. And I've
kind of taken a proactive approach being in front of this board many times, and I've taken some considerable risk to come with variances with a plan that the neighbors in HBC support. And um so it's just to your point that oddly enough it
was compliant during my original proposal and this is where I'm at now and I wouldn't be proposing this if I didn't know that there was a demand for it with even if there was zero parking there's a demand for it and I know it
affects the rents on the property. Um, but to see this project happen, which would create affordable housing plus naturally occur occurring affordable housing, I think is worthwhile while also preserving the historic nature of the property and and having neighbors on
board. I think there's a lot of benefits. I mean, I'm sure my planner will testify to all that, but I understand your point. >> Could I follow up for just a second? Could you Daniel, could you or Mr. could you go to the uh slide you showed
with the parking in the neighborhood? Um now I think it's this is also going to be redeveloped for u affordable housing or new housing units. Is that correct? >> These two these two sites are the
combination are in the fourth round plan. um if and when I don't know exactly, but these two are in the plan to be redeveloped. Okay. And
>> excuse me, Harrison Street garages as well to the north. >> Yeah, that whole the uh asphalt on both sides. If the bank were willing to give you spots
um once you get leases, how many would they give you? How many would they be willing to give you? >> I think they were saying they can have up to six of them. >> The I guess the real purpose is there's a lot of like free a lot of moving
pieces here that are always happening in this neighborhood. I know that firsthand by owning a property here and my father living two blocks down. You know, there's a lot of, hey, can I rent spaces from you? Can you rent spaces for me? They've been readily available up to
this point. >> But if that whole area is going to be redeveloped, it's going to be a gamecher. My concern kind of I I kind of agree with Mr. Floyd, you know, I think you could probably work it out with your tenants and things like that, but when
you what happens when you sell the building, you know, unless it's somehow spelled out pretty clearly of what the parking's going to be, I don't I have a problem with it, too. So,
>> two hands are up, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, please. Who's next? >> Bernice. >> Bernice. >> Sure. Yeah. I I just wanted to uh quickly go back to the um affordable uh unit locations. Um, just to add on, I
appreciate that we're not we're we're trying not to have the affordable units segregated, but um I still view the ground floor units as uh attractive to people with kids and especially young
kids that might be unloading a car or at least coming in with armfuls of of things and then needing to lift up kids up the stairs And um I I I I think there's a lot of good reasons why those are are are not less
attractive but more attractive if what you're talking about are families with young kids in particular. >> But there will be two-bedroom units if if they uh depending on what the governing body decides
that may be they may be two two-bedroom units. So they would be the same as any of the other units. I don't I don't necessarily agree that they both units should be both affordable units should be on uh on the
ground floor because I find that rear unit obviously now that won't be an affordable unit. That'll be a market rate unit by commitment by the developer. >> Well, okay. >> All right.
>> Do you have anything else, Bernese? >> Um, no. Just just uh those unit location. >> Who else would like to speak? >> I think Mr. Aniki and also uh Justin. Let's go have their hands raised. >> Okay. Mr. Anosiki.
>> Yes. Uh I I I just have uh I just want to say uh add to the parking concern. Uh this is more like I say a recommendation to Mr. Bossi. Um, if we're if you are
looking for five additional parking spaces, uh, and I think that could help. Uh, have you considered uh some kind of shared parking with the W card uh parking space there? The five parking
units. If you if you could consider some kind of shared parking arrangement with them so that in the evenings the residentials will use those five parking spaces. And the Wat is a realtor office. They
typically don't open until maybe 10, 11 in the morning and they have enough time for people to vacate those spaces. It could be something you want to consider. I think that's going to help a lot especially with uh the uh uh the concern
about proximity to the listed spaces you're you're looking at. It's just a suggestion, something that you might want to look at. It's >> a good idea. Thank you. Justin, >> I can go next. Um, I just have two comments. The first I want to correct
something in my report um where I mentioned that the properties at 14 North Harrison Street and 366 Nassau Street are in the fourth round plan. Um, that is incorrect. The one at 14 North Harrison Street is not. The one at 366 is. And also that one at 245 um is in
the fourth round plan. Um that's the one that Mr. Floyd mentioned before is across from the IVN. So that's not very approximate to begin with. Um but the second comment is that um one that is notably not in the fourth round plan is the Bank of America. um because that is
like the white whale for redevelopment in Princeton. Um of a site that is way overparked um is nearly 100% asphalt for a brickandmortar bank when we keep hearing about you know how those are no longer that important. Bank of America
obviously closed down the one in the bank building on the corner of Nassau Street and Witherspoon Street not too long ago. Yet they hang on to this one. Um, and the folks in Charlotte do not seem to have any interest in redeveloping that site. Um, so when Mr.
Barski says, uh, he may be able to rent spaces from there, I think that parking lot's going to be there for for some time, um, for better or worse. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. I just want to add, Mr. Darski had mentioned that he had a fully
compliant plan and that would still have had to go for a preliminary and final site plan approval which would have uh caused discussion on that
larger development on that parcel. >> That's correct, Mr. Cohen. Um that plan never uh it was paused before it went to the planning board. Um, notably the, uh, Historic Preservation Commission did not recommend approval of that, which would
have required the planning board to state on the record why they would disagree with that. Um, so I just mentioned that to say complying is not the same as approved. >> Sax, >> Steve, um, Derek has his hand raised.
>> Yeah. >> Okay, Derek. >> Thank you. Um, Daniel, could you just touch upon if if the two-bedroom unit was moved to the third floor that the size of it would comply with the current? >> Uh, it will. >> Yes, it would, Derek. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, board members, any other questions of the applicant or his witnesses? >> Yes. Um, my hand is raised. >> Mr. Borski, just help me out with egress and ingress into this um parking lot. Is
there a way to get from Nassau Street, you know, back through Whole Earth parking lot into your proposed parking lot area for the new building? >> No, without coming down Nassau or
Harrison Street to access this walkway here or through this drive aisle to this back door. So, you would have to come down Nassau and along Harrison Street. >> So, okay. So, there's the entrance and
the exit on Harrison Street. I can't get there from Nassau Street um by parking in one of those back lots. I mean, can I you say you cannot drive into
the your drive-thru kind of site? They're driving in parking area. It's not accessible from the other entrance, the other side. >> It's not. You would have to if you would park your car and then walk down to the
sidewalk and around the site to the building. >> Okay. Okay. Um, I was just there today and I don't recall exactly what the layout is, but um, I gather there there are sort of
landmarks in front of that ingress and egress and that can't be changed. >> You're talking about what section exactly? >> You see where where you have a little square? It says parking and driving aisle, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> And you're saying there's no from that lot over there or whatever it is over there. There's no access. >> No, there's not. This is the WER parking lot in the rear here. Um and and then there's solid fences and there's no way
to actually pass through here. >> Okay. Because >> so there's a whole lot of Yeah, there's a whole lot of gray changes and fences and walls and uh Yeah, there would be no way to pass through here. >> There's permanent Okay. There's permanent structures there. >> There are. Yes.
>> Okay. So, Billy, the only way to get in and out is that Harrison Street entrance with a car. >> Yes. >> Or with an e or with an emergency vehicle. Okay. Thank you. >> Correct. Uh
>> um yes. Who spoke? Michael. >> Yeah. Uh you could go first, Michael, if you'd like. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Back to the um my uncomfortability additionally with the manage parking
management plan. If it's if we go to your section on occupancy of the managing plan, it is anticipated that commercial tenant will occupy its spaces during normal business hours and
residential tenants will occupy their assigned spots during evening and weekend hours. I don't believe that can be stated like that as that's how it's going to be. If you're going to
have say like you have a real estate agent Queenston in there now, they work on Saturdays too, you know, and they they meet with tenants. So, normal business hours won't be necessarily exclude weekends. And
with tenants, they're not just going to be you you can't say that a after 5:00 or after 6. whatever you mean there. I think I think think again
the management of parking is not that easy as you know and it's not it's not as easy as what's stated here >> it in um in that next paragraph there um Mr. Floyd um I put in there that it's
really not a practical way to manage this tight site. So, I said it's likely that's a scenario, but I'm not going to be monitoring or managing people moving in and out of parking. I'm gonna allocate two spots
um to commercial, one to affordable, the rest of the market, right residential um because coordinating people in and out of here um this isn't the ideal site for that. >> So, people would drive in, there's no
spots, they'd have to leave. Well, people would only you would have an assigned space. So, yeah. >> All right. How is Michael? Are you done? >> Yeah. Yeah. I
>> How is Go ahead. >> I was just going to ask how is the trash taken out? So, for the trash, um we're proposing, uh I spoke with my private hauler and they have um a small pickup style truck for this amount of garbage and recycling
that they said is perfectly acceptable. He would pull uh into the drive aisle and I would um um coordinate him, put him on contract to come in off peak hours. So when there's not a lot of traffic or cars going in and out, he
would walk down the sidewalk down our walkway. He would take the trash and recycling, wheel it down, um, and load the truck, and then he would use this handicap striping to turn around and come back
out of the parking lot. Um, you could technically bring this trash and recycling through the lobby, but I don't I would ask him not to do that. ask them to come up and around to not disturb residents, especially because I would be having them coming early in the morning
when there's not a lot of uh vehicle movement. >> But that's going to block that. It's going to it could, you know, block the drive aisle from this property as well as the adjacent property that uses it. >> Right. So that's why I'm going to have
them coming uh off peak hour. So, you know, not coming when there's going to be car a lot of cars coming in and out of here. Okay. >> He could also he could also maybe five or 6 a.m., but he could also pull in the striping and load the truck and then back out. But this is the the plan for
trash and recycling. >> Okay. Well, we'll talk about the drive aisle, I assume, in a separate conversation. Okay. Any other questions or >> uh Yes, Mr. Chair. Uh I have two. Um,
while you were on that slide, Daniel, um, can you describe how the deliveries, uh, I know we talked about this a little last week, um, or last meeting, uh, you expect deliveries to be able to do the same thing like an Amazon or, you know,
maybe not a big UPS van? >> Yeah, I don't think big big delivery trucks are going to be coming in and out of here and doing these maneuvers. plus with the clearance height. Uh but certainly smaller um delivery trucks could.
But typically, you know, there's metered parking directly across the street. Um this is going to have a Nassau Street address knowing Amazon drivers. They're going to pull to this. You can't see it here on this page, but into the metered parking, walk across the street, deliver
the package, and go back. Um, I could put up all the signs and write them all the emails, but they're probably likely going to do that anyway. Uh, but certainly smaller smaller delivery cars could do the same kind of uh maneuver. >> Yeah, with all due respect, I I I disagree with that because those meter
parking spaces are not till past uh the whole earth and they're on the other side. So, um I think we all know how some of these big companies track, you know, deliveries and time and all that
sort of stuff and that leads to the vans to park directly in front of where they need to go regardless of of who they stop. You know, I live on Witherspoon Street um and they just stop that, you know, they don't care. Um, so are you confident that
frankly that that won't occur at this intersection? >> I mean it's am am I confident? I I mean it's um it's Amazon. They they pull over. I mean you you see them all over the streets. They pull over Yeah. basically where they please. I don't have a whole lot of control
>> over where they pull in and how they do it. Um, it would be my I would presume that, you know, those spots are right across from Whole Earth, which is right next door. It's not even a quarter block away. I would think they're going to pull to the first safe place. They're
not going to stop in the middle of an intersection, deliver a package, which happens to be metered parking across the street. Um, other smaller cars may come in and use this uh hashed area for the handicap stall to turn around, but I would imagine it's going to be some
combination of the two. Um, I'm not confident in Amazon to begin with. So, >> yeah. No, no. And I agree with you on that because I I do think it's very much a police issue. Um, and I might have said to this board, if not other boards, that I've seen our police officers uh just drive around them when they're
stopped in the middle of Witherspoon Street. Um, so that might be a larger issue. Um, but my only other comment is um, uh, someone asked about the room sizes earlier, and the state requirement under those new rules is actually 765
square ft for a two-bedroom unit. Um, Mr. Barski showing 850 ft for each, I believe, uh, which is just under 10% more. And and I think this board knows um uh very well how a lot of times you see applications and and we're fighting
to barely get them over that line um while the rest of the units end up being you know 1,200 square feet. Um so I did just want to point that out as something we don't usually see and um that that would be a benefit in this application. >> Okay. Um,
Mr. Tar, Mr. Barski, what's next? >> Uh, Mr. Rancamp is our planner. Last time I gave you an extensive list of his credentials. Suffice it to say, he's been a planner licensed in New Jersey for 31 years, is an expert in
matters such as this, and we'd like him to give planning testimony. >> Well, agree that we can recognize him as an expert. >> Steve, this is Stephen Shriber. Can we take a 5m minute break before we start this testimony? >> We can. Let's see what time it is.
>> It is 9:38. So, how about we do 9 It's 9:39. How about we do 9:45? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. yourself.
I don't know why. Okay. Um, it is 9:45. We'll wait till Mr. Tannerbound comes back. And there we go. Okay. Um, let's
continue on. >> Mr. Rain camp has just appeared and he's ready to start. >> Okay. Just make Claudia, are we recording again? >> Yes, we are. >> Thank you. >> Okay, please continue.
>> Good evening. I wasn't sure we would get to planning. We're going to shift uh gears a little bit and talk a little bit more about policy than about site plan. Uh but let me start the evening by adopting the testimony of my professionals uh on the team and Mr. Barski as well. um to the extent uh I
was here, heard their testimony, and I support the things they said. Uh and that'll save the board from me having to say all of that all over again. Uh from a planning perspective, um as the board has has I'm sure figured out by this point, we've made it a a central theme
of our proposal to you. Um is that the core planning issue here um is that the work that Mr. Rebina has done uh in working with the neighbors to come up with what was um judged to be a superior approach to the development of the site
creates a use variance. Um these ah2 we'll go through it in a little bit more detail anticipated that non-residential would be on the ground floor and residential would be above. Um and obviously the plan that's before you is more complicated than that. We have both situations. So we have a a use variance
in two parts. Um the important thing here is that the uh purpose of the AHO2 district in addition to adding affordable housing to your plan um calls out the retention of historic buildings um and supporting the Nassau Street corridor uh with that continuation of
non-residential uses on that corridor. Um the proposal that's before you has the non-residential uses on the ground floor um on what the ordinance would refer to as the street fronting building. Um, so the historic building facing Nassau Street continues to have the non-residentidential
um on the ground floor continuing to activate uh Nassau Street with interest in and non-residential activity at that level. Our residential on the ground floor here is tucked behind that building. Um so it is not consequential
in terms of the activation of Nassau Street and the interest at the street frontage of the site. um and is in fact tucked into what in the complian complying plan that had been before the planning board was parking. Um so we're substituting an area of parking for two
residential units um to get to a reasonable residential yield, but it in no way impacts the ordinance intent um on having that non-residential uh use on the front u of the uh of the site itself. Um and in reverse um in order to
um not connect the residential building to the historic building, protect the rear, not have a connection, um that second story of the historic building doesn't make sense as freestanding residential disconnected to the services lobby and all of the other activities uh
that would go with the residential building. Um so the use variance is asking to allow the uh office use to continue on the second story. Um and while that's a use variance in the AHO2, obviously this is a corridor in which second floor offices um is not atypical.
Um so it still fits within the character and nature of the corridor, the neighborhood that it's that it's in um even though it's a a technically a use variance um under the AHO2. Um in terms of of purposes, special reasons
for that variance, um obviously there's purpose J, conservation of historic sites and districts. Uh the whole point of this amended approach to developing the site uh is the preservation of the historic building. Um not only its facade, but also not over topping it, not connecting to it, and protecting the
back of the building as well. Um and all of that would be advancing purpose J. Um, I'd also point to purpose I going in close connection to that which is the desirable visual environment. Um, obviously dropping the height not connecting new and old buildings
together um has been uh um judged to be a superior aesthetic approach uh to the overall jug town uh area as well. So not just the historic elements but the way the design interrelates uh implicates purpose I. Um, I'd point to purpose G
because we are continuing the purposes of the AHO2 with a reasonable residential yield. We're not getting the maximum number of units that the district would have permitted, but a reasonable residential yield and still contributing affordable housing uh to the overall uh affordable housing plan.
And to the extent we're going to talk about bulk variances in half a second, um I point to purpose M as well, which is the efficient use of land. Um, in order to get all of this to occur on this site, uh, the bulk variances that I'll talk about in a second are going to be necessary. Um, so let me switch
gears. I'm going to reserve the, um, uh, intent and purpose of the zone plan and impact of the neighbors until after I do the bulk and I'll do them together that there it's going to be the same story uh, both for use and bulk on those on those prongs. Um the site plan that
we're showing or the exhibit that we're showing uh from Daniel's uh packet um identifies the areas where we are have bulk u um discrepancies from the AHO2 and other provisions of the zoning code. Um let me start going down the central
portion um of the exhibit that is between the uh foundation and first floor level of the residential building um and the existing structure that will remain in office. Um theoretically two buildings on the same lot uh require the
uh 10- foot setback. Um and obviously we are encroaching on that in in two different sections coming down to 5T towards the rear of the property which allows adequate access to get back to what we have as the pocket area um for shared waste management.
Um and in the front we had to encroach on it two feet in order to get sufficient living space for the units that we have on the ground floor. Um this is not a provision specifically in the AHO2. Uh this is a general zoning provision for two buildings on the same
lot. Um and I believe that we are um because we're we're ensuring that let me put it the other way around. The way to comply with this and not have the variance is to connect the buildings um as the original proposal did by requiring the buildings to be separate giving us enough room to accomplish the
objectives of the walkway and the bike pack bike racks. we have the distances that we show. Um, so it serves the purpose, but going further apart would not allow this uh approach to the development to be uh be successful. The next one I'm going to go down to the
bottom of the exhibit. It shows five feet as a setback from the Harris Harris right ofway 5T to uh the building. Um, oddly the the zoning code in the AHO2 would allow us to go to zero. Um, so it's not that we're trying to get closer than the code permits, but the code
gives us two choices. You can be at zero or you can be at 10. Um, and given the the the busyiness of the roadway, the the relationship of the walk to the right of way, um, we think it makes more sense to give a little bit of of space here and the five feet allows us to accomplish that. Um, I think it's
aesthetically pleasing to have that. I think zero would be too extreme in this particular location. Um, so I think five feet makes sense. um requiring us to go back to 10 where zero is permitted. Um I I think is is uh what following the rules more than the sense. Um this is
doing this is providing an appropriate side uh uh area in presentation to the roadway and its character. U so I think five feet makes sense uh from a design perspective. Um and as I said zero could theoretically be be permitted.
Now I'll go to the left hand side where we've got the one foot indicator for these um uh buffer area if you will between parking and property line um and 10 feet to the building. Um this is a judged to be a rear yard which would require 15 ft in the district. Um let me
start with the buffer. Um the buffer is generally required to protect the residential from the non-residential aspects in the area. Um, and here what we're talking about is we're the residential. Immediately adjacent to us is a currently a commercial property.
Um, providing a buffer between a parking and an access way. Um, doesn't make a ton of sense. We are addressing the aesthetics of it with the fence and you heard the description of the fence we were proposing. Um, could go to a solid fence, but it accomplishes the screening, the blocking of the headlight lights um, and all the rest um, while
allowing the overall development to occur. the 10- foot setback to the residential building is occurring up on the upper level. Um, so it's not encroaching at the ground level, the ground plane if you will. Um, it's further higher, it's higher up. Um, and
allows this uh alternative approach to the development of the site to occur. Um, overall, I would suggest that these are appropriate um because we are in advancing the intent and purpose of the zone plan. we are going above and beyond what the ordinance requires in in order
to establish and protect uh the the characteristics of the historic building and historic site. Um and we are still providing affordable housing. So the the the goals of the AHO2, both of them that are are in two different sections, um are being met by this alternative uh
approach to the development of the site. Um and as you go around the perimeter of the site, I don't believe that the uh this new plan provides any additional um impacts on neighbors that the original conforming plan would not have created. Um so we are not creating any uh
substantial detriment to the neighborhood as a result of switching from the original conforming plan uh to this alternative plan. Um as I think Mr. Barski put uh very passionately. Um the choices effectively before this board is to allow an alternative approach to the
development of the site which triggers the use variance and these bulk variances um to accomplish the the protection of the historic building and its contribution to the district um in a way that advances that intent of of the affordable housing uh to district. uh
the conforming plan um obviously didn't need the relief um but did not accomplish the goals in terms of overall design. Um so it's basically a better design with both standards uh with bolt variances and the use variance um or going back to the uh conforming plan
with that doesn't achieve uh the design goals in the same way. Um so for those reasons I believe that these are appropriate variances um in this context and that finishes it for me. Council, >> what about the uh 20 foot drive aisle?
>> Oh um yeah, I I see that more as a design waiver than than a variance. But but you've heard engineering testimony, you've seen turning templates. Uh the 20 ft works. It's a a limited space with limited u activity. This is not a public area where where uh people unused to the
space are going to be drawn in on a frequent basis. These are going to be people used to the area. Um if their K turn takes an extra movement, that's not the end of life. Uh that the the the space here works. Um and in terms of the overall depth of the parking spaces plus
uh drive aisle, uh there's actually more room than simply saying there's a a 20- foot drive aisle. Um there's adequate room in here for cars to maneuver. U I believe that would be an appropriate waiver um actually from RSIS. >> So we've um spent a good bit of time
talking about the number of parking spaces. I think we've had lots of views expressed. Craig, do you have a thought on that? >> It it is obviously the the current wave in planning in communities like Princeton um to allow the development of
sites with very limited or even no parking. Um just last night I was in a community with a building with no parking. Um and it's an expectation and a realization historically um that there are now um residents who don't have cars. Um that the Uber Lift um and black
car service um has changed the residential um um experience for many people. Um and living without a car is in fact one of my children my one of my children married with kids uh doesn't have a car. uh they're perfectly happy using the various uh ride services uh in
a community like Princeton. Um this is simply allowing the marketplace to provide that kind of housing. Um as Mr. Barski said, there'll be a price adjustment um as part of that that they can be welcome to a to a a household to get a rightly priced house where they're
not buying parking that they don't need. Um and to have that as part of the um array of uses offered in your community, I think is a positive thing. Well, Craig, thanks for that very concise and thoughtful uh presentation.
Are there questions, Mr. Chairman? >> Not right now. Any board members, any questions of the uh planner? >> Michael. Just on the the last point again,
um you know, the modern times of uh municipalities recognizing uh that less parking should be required. I guess to the planner
did or the traffic and did the town in recognizing that and creating AO2 which gave significant parking concessions
recognizing the point you just made. Do you believe they just didn't go far enough? And if so, how little is too little? The town already did that what you said.
>> So, so I have two responses to that. Um, one is that parking fulfills its own market. However much parking you you provide in in a in a development will be that many people with cars that will be willing to live there. Um, if you have a building that doesn't provide parking,
every the the potential tenants of that building know that moving in. So, you're self- selecting the tenants. So, yes, having more parking would be great. It opens up more marketplace for for Mr. Barski in the future. Um, but not having parking is not fatal. Um, it simply
means he's he's the one in the marketplace searching for those tenants uh that don't need parking. Um, so I to me it's a market rate market issue. Um, I I wouldn't say that the AHO2 district was wrong u in providing some additional parking. Um, and frankly, as Mr. Mr. Mr.
Flet, as you were going through your math, I'm looking this at this as a building that essentially complies on the residential side. And and while Mr. Barski wants to save a space or two for for his commercial tenant, um we're we're essentially out out placing um the
commercial parking. Um that that's where the the bulk of that parking demand on that table was coming from that's not being satisfied on site. Um I I think the spaces we're showing are are very close um to to what would be required under AHO2. Um so I I I don't see this
as a substantial um um change if you will relative to the residential requirement of AHO2. Um it's essentially asking the community to believe um that a commercial office use as Mr. Barski said he will curate to to find tenants
that that don't have high parking demand can be satisfied as other businesses are in the corridor. Well, then the followup question is what's the use of a wellthoughtout
AO2 zoning code if you maintain it should be driven by the market because you reminded me what my second part of that answer was. Um, the AHO2 would allow us to build a taller building connected to the
historic building. So, we're being told, don't follow the AHO2 because we want aesthetically something different by the community to happen on this site. And the trade-off is, okay, we'll lower the building, we'll move it away, but we still need to create some of the yield
that the AHO2 expects. And we're looking for for ways to make that happen. Where the pressure point comes is on parking. So, it's an absolute trade-off. Do we want to protect and preserve that building even more than the ordinance would have already and the trade-off is
less parking or do we want to go back to the conforming plan that doesn't do as good a job in protecting that resource? I I I think the the public working with Miss Rabino has made the right choice. This is the superior site plan and the cost is Yeah. Okay. We've got to rethink
our parking. So I'm hearing you're saying the only option is to go back if if this is denied or if it's denied because of parking is to go back to
the previous proposal. >> Certainly doing less housing is not advancing. >> Probably I probably should direct that to Mr. Tar or Mr. Barski because you don't make that call. I'd argue that one.
>> He's testified that there's a basis for support for the reduced parking. That was his testimony. >> Well, no, his testimony was also the option is to go back to the the original
as of right. >> Well, it's not exact. It's as of right. It's zoning compliant, but it would still need site plan approval. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Right. >> That's that's what I meant. So, >> okay, >> that's what he said.
>> So, Justin, >> yes, thank you. I would like to jump in um on the municipal side as as the planner. Um just to discuss some of the things about the AHO2 uh that was created in our third round of affordable
housing to allow for the realistic development of affordable housing. we have not had a another application um in that zone with the standards that we have right now. Um so that leads me to
believe in the six years in which that's been in place um something is not quite there to allow for the creation of affordable housing. Um and in some of our other affordable housing ordinances um particularly in the burrow uh we
require less slightly less um parking for the residential units um more so one uh space per unit. Here it's 1.1 um but much less uh and the um the first five you don't count um as it is here. Um but
uh we allow for significantly less um uh commercial uh minimum parking. Um in those cases it's actually zero. Uh so and those are the zones I'm thinking of the ones that are on uh North Two Lane Street and parts of Nassau Street
probably uh I'd say a third of a mile from this one. So there is a slight difference in um those are closer in town. There are parking garages near them. there's metered parking. Uh there are all those things. So I would not recommend, you
know, copying that and I think there was a reason why we we distinguish from those six years ago. But that being said, um I think if we were to at some point we we would potentially refine this zone, we were not able to do that
um in the past six years um because then we would have to open up uh our third round all over again and and you know, we basically just did not want to do that. Um but it is very possible that in the future if we were to refine this um
we would not use the underlying zoning which uh the underlying zoning's parking uh which our master plan uh approved in in 2023 um critiques pretty significantly um for all those reasons that Mr. Rancamp said
earlier. But would you lower would you suggest lowering it to the amount that they're actually proposing? >> Um I'm not sure off the top of my head. I have not done the math. But um I will note that for the um uh
just introduced ordinance for the site next door to it. um which would be a a mixeduse building um on a larger scale allowing many more units um but also allowing or requiring uh commercial space. Um we do allow for for some of
the units to be or some of the parking spaces to be shared. Uh I think we used language that said something like 50% of the spaces of the commercial spaces can be counted uh essentially the residential can be
counted twice or or the space can be counted twice. Let me put it that way. Um so we have we could have chosen to use this underlying zoning uh this underlying parking from the underlying zoning but we chose not to um because of some of
those reasons that Mr. Rancamp said. So, I don't know. I haven't done the math if it'd be this exact number. Um, but it would be fewer than I think it was 13.3 that, uh, was required. Um, it, you know, I think it's safe to say it would
be half of that, um, if not fewer. And I ju just would say um you know earlier when I was talking I actually on my own recognize
for me to view it in that way too where if you may recall rather than the 13.6 on the office side I said I could see something like seven or eight. >> Mhm. I mean, that's that's fairly fair
to me, but you know, that's without, you know, the town weighing in on anything. But, um, 7 7 to 8, let's say, seven now, plus the five and a half that should be for the residential still gets us to 12.
So, I'm saying yes, in my mind, give them these concessions on the office, but it's still not enough parking. But that's just in my mind and my thinking.
>> Other people may have thought it through much more and in a different way. >> So, Mr. Chairman, that completes the testimony, direct testimony from the applicant. I remind you that our neighbors wanted to speak and of course
questions and comments from the board to any of our experts. >> Well, well, all right. Assuming there are no more questions of the applicant, the applicant's witnesses by the board. Um,
after a allowing Mr. Tar to make a statement, we'll open this up to the public. Um, I'd like >> I'd like to defer my statement until after the public presents, Mr. Chairman. Who who who said that? >> Yeah, it was Mr. Toar. I'd like to defer. >> No problem.
>> No problem. All right. So, >> chairman, Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question before? >> Sure. >> Um I I haven't quite figured out until just now how to ask this. I'm just wondering how I mean it just seems like
this in so many ways is a very tight fit regarding the parking how close it is to the building and you know we can the building in front of it and one thing I keep looking at is that five feet
between the building and North Harrison Street and Um and the man who just spoke said you know if we did 10 ft that would be something like unnecessary and you know and uh z
it would be following I think he said following the rules rather than what makes sense zero would be extreme 5t is fine and I don't know is can I'd
love to I it's hard for me to imagine that. I wonder if there's are there any buildings in town that you could point me to that are residential that are on a street like Harrison that are have like bedroom window right 5 ft from from the
curb. I mean we could it can be done you could build it but a lot of things here feel very um >> kind of unlivable but maybe maybe there's a market. Could we bring up the site plan that that the reference to the
5T to the curb is not correct. Could Daniel could you put up the original site plan? >> It's 5 foot to the It's 5 foot from the rightway line >> right >> to the building which is not the curb line. >> Correct. Daniel, could you put up this first slide, please?
>> It's five feet here at the curb line. It's much further to the actual street. >> How much? And Jim Jim Jim, how much? >> Uh, eight. Five plus three. >> Oh, >> well that's a lot. Never mind.
>> Yeah. Uh, and also it's worth noting that actually the existing building is sits closer to the street than the proposed. >> Well, nobody lives there now, though. >> The existing building is a commercial building. Nobody building >> some. Okay. Yeah.
I mean, in most of downtown area, >> why the first floor is meant to be commercial. >> I I'm it it concerns me. It's one of the things that concerns me about how tight this building is on this.
>> Harrison Street, and I think Eve is correct. Harrison Street gets a lot of traffic. There's truck traffic. There's buses. There's cars backed up on coming towards heading towards Route One. There's cars backed up all the time. So,
there's a lot there to have a bedroom that close to the to the drive aisle there to the roadway is is tight. I just feel that for especially for myself not being an architect, there are
things that we're talking about in the abstract, but I'm at times I'm visualizing or trying to imagine what it what it would be like to live there. And if that's the kind of
housing that we want to create and we can approve it, I I guess we can approve it. But um it it's just >> so there isn't is there any example that's like this that's res residential that I could go take a look at that
anyone happens to know about? >> There's a lot of units all down Nassau Street where there's residences right up on the street. I mean in my experience >> well I don't think any offh hand. Maybe I need to take a walk there if you can think of one. the the the type of
tenants that are renting units like this are a specific kind of tenant and they're specifically looking for downtown living. Understanding that they're close to a street, but they're also close to downtown and close to public transport and close to the
shopping center and close to a lot of other amenities. And um I build other like I said other buildings on Nassau Street and Lincoln Court and Van Deender where they're busy roads and there's a big demand for for
the right type of tenant to live here. So >> this is the affordable this is one of the two affordable units as I recall >> this one here is I can certainly put it on the other side. You you the board I'm flexible on this. Well, I think we
already said that there was some problems with that side, too. >> Okay. But so, yeah, because it's, you know, it's a relatively small building. All the units face out on somewhere. Yeah. >> It's a very small lot. It's >> Yeah, it's barely an
>> Isn't that why the ordinance recognizes again residential on the upper floors and commercial on the lower floors? >> Uh, I could address that. Um, I think that's more about having a vibrant streetscape than it is about protecting residential tenants. Um, and in this
case, uh, we have that vibrant streetscape because they're keeping the office in the front. So, the way I look at this is they're essentially just shifting the building on the side from what was uh, uh, initially envisioned in this AHO and in other ones. Um, and it
still meets the spirit of that. >> Okay. And I think to answer the question, um, and of course my lights turn off. >> Michael, did you have something? >> Uh, sorry. If I could just if I could just finish. Um, just to answer. Uh,
someone they got to pay the bills around here. Um, uh, I I think, um, there are a lot of places in town that do have buildings pretty close. Um I'm trying to think if there are any specifically in the tree streets. Um but certainly um on
Witherspoon Street um you know my bedroom window is probably 8 ft from the sidewalk, maybe 12 feet from the curb. Um and there are ambulances going down there and it's just you know a a fact of life. Um and it's probably why I can afford to be here.
>> Justin Jim Purcell here. I I'll reiterate that. Uh yes, uh Pine Street in particular, uh the the houses are right up against the sidewalk. >> So if you walk down the tree streets, you'll see uh similar situations where
residential homes are very close um and steps are actually within our municipal rightway to up to porches. So >> Okay. Hands are up.
>> Well, excuse me. Bernice, Michael had a question. >> No, Bernice was before me. >> Uh, yeah. I I just wanted to to say if you look just right around the corner on on Nassau on the on the other side um
opposite uh a o opposite the wholeer center side there are houses not um not at the at the at the wer part but just around the corner where they're right up against um very very close to the
sidewalk. um they might not be bu bedrooms, but there's certainly examples of of that uh residential, but um I did have a question about what is the um I I don't know if it was in the drawings, but the uh elevation of that first
floor, how much is it above the level of the sidewalk? Can't be too much because well >> yeah it doesn't look like much. >> That would probably be a question for Mr. Kamalek. >> M Rebina. >> Well, I think Mr. Kamalek would know
what the finished first floor is relative. >> It's within about a footwalk. >> It's within about a foot of the sidewalk. So the the finished first floor of the building is a foot above the sidewalk. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And that's going to So coming in underneath the building, you can get up to that one foot from an ADA standpoint. >> Yes. There's there are no risers from the sidewalk up to the front door.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. And Daniel, maybe you're able to pull out pull up to the elevation. Uh because um we did have a little transitional space there to uh keep going. Keep going. Keep going.
You're almost there. Oh, did you just went right? Nope. One more. Keep going. Keep going. There we go. Yes. So there Oh, you just skipped it. Yes. So there's a little um
lower portion wall with landscaping in it and then windows. So that it what we're trying to do is we're trying to create kind of a transitional space. So if we absolutely understand that this is a different type of living. This is not
suburban living. This is very much urban living. But it it it's more of a here's the building facade. Then there's kind of a planter in front that creates that space of kind of urban garden for lack of a better word.
>> And then as um Jim explained, our ground floor units are wheelchair accessible, which is really important because we do not have an elevator and um at least one of the affordable units needs to be wheelchair accessible. So, it is
critical that they're located on the ground floor. >> Excuse me. Were these uh were those drawings included in the plans? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Just wanted to know if we need to make >> I think No. No. So, Daniel has them individually per slide, but they're on
an elevation sheet. And the the the drawing that Daniel showed had a little bubble showing which sheet they were on. And also, um, Jen, we we did include that three-foot parkway or that green between the curb line and the edge of
the sidewalk >> to create a larger softened sort of buffer and pedestrian space where currently the sidewalk right now is right up on the curb line. So, we felt like that was another asset with sort of reworking this streetscape with the
elements that Marina discussed. >> Yeah. And it Sorry to to um to Miss Chen's point is she's absolutely right. Along Naso Street, there are homes including the home of one of our neighbors from safe drug town
who has that exact relationship where there's a home very close to the to the sidewalk. Then there's a little space and she has a garden and a little kind of a traditional wall. Yes, her house is elevated a little bit up, but in our case, because of wheelchair
accessibility, we have to stay down. Uh, but it's the same concept. It goes building, wall, kind of a transitional planting zone, sidewalk, green strip, and then street. It's a it's an urban way of living. >> Yeah, I I definitely see that there's a
precedent for that. I'm actually looking at at 335 NASA and the surrounding houses and I'd say it is, you know, there's definitely >> exactly that >> examples of that. >> Yep. You're exactly right. Yep.
>> Thanks. Thank you. I'll take a look. I'll take a walk there. >> Okay. >> Any other questions, Mr. Floyd? >> Yes. >> Yeah. And then Eve, if if I could ask you on on the five-foot, I thought at
our last meeting, you had asked about the five-foot between the two buildings where 10 is required and various, you know, I think eight is in some
places, but five in some. I thought that was the five foot you were. >> Well, that still concerns me. That's a different five foot that I don't >> any >> because it's, you know, it's low down and it's going to be darker and it's
just really close. >> Okay. Yeah, I was. >> But I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about which side of the building I meant. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions? All right, we're going to open it up to
the public now. What I'd like to do is limit each presentation to five minutes so we can keep this moving along. Claudia, do we have people that are interested in speaking on behalf of this
application? >> Mr. Raffen is the lawyer for this Save Jug Town. I I believe he wanted to speak. >> Mr. Chairman, I I have a professional relationship with Bruce. Um so I don't know if I need I I
>> uh just for the sake of um making everything proper. Um >> well then you have to No, he he ought not speak. We we need seven voters. We ought not speak. So, uh um
uh >> uh Karen, what what are your thoughts? >> Well, I would for Karen. >> No, my my first reaction is that's and and without delving into whatever relationship you have with with Mr.
Afron, um since he's being offered to provide support for the application, E either either you step aside or Mr. Afron doesn't comment either way, but
his his role tonight is to I believe um express support for the application and to go through why you know that's the case. So >> I can withdraw. I don't know if you can hear me. Um I can withdraw and not
speak. I didn't know until we started that Mr. Tanbam was on >> and so had I known in advance I would have pointed it out. If Mr. Tar is correct that you need the seven voters um and there could be a danger of not
getting a result. I think it's better that I don't participate this way. You don't need a recusal. I haven't said anything yet of substance. >> Right. >> Uh and I did text Mr. Tannibal that you know the issue should be raised. So, since I've said nothing thus far, I
don't think there's any conflict or prejudice. And if you run the risk of no decision one way or the other, I think it's best if I withdraw since um there are other members of my client group who will speak in any event. >> Thanks so much, Bruce. That was very kind of you.
>> You're welcome. Thank you. I'll stay on and observe if no one minds. >> I don't see the need to recuse myself even if Mr. Afron does speak, but I'll leave that to other members of the board. Karen, to your >> Well, if if he's not participating and not speaking, then I don't I don't see
why you need to recuse yourself. I assume you can you don't feel that you're biased, correct? >> I I wouldn't feel biased if he spoke. >> Okay. >> I don't feel biased at all. >> I mean, I I I would rather obviously speak, but I really don't want to cause
any legal problem down the road. So I perhaps the better part of valor is that I don't speak. Um I think Mr. Torres and I are on the same page with this. >> I thank you again. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Claudia. Um is there anyone else
has indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application? >> Well, I should say beforehand >> we're going to open it up to the public. If there are any members of the public that want to speak, they can indicate that by pressing the raise your hand
button on the bottom of the screen and then you will be recognized. >> Claudia, do we have anyone that's wanting to speak? >> Lifford Zinc, have you pressed the the the hand button? >> You're muted.
>> Yeah, I see Mr. Zinc on the screen, but he's muted. Clifford, you're muted. >> Okay. >> Hi. I believe I believe Don is going to speak first. >> Okay.
I'm in the upper leftand corner of my >> Okay. Mr. Denny, >> we're gonna screw you in and we're going to ask you if you're comfortable giving us your address. >> Hi, my name is Don Denny. I live at 335 Nassau Street. Right. And do you swear
or affirm any testimony you provide this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Five minutes. >> Oh, I hope not. Not so long, Mr. Cohen. I'm a founding member of Safe Jug Towns. We're a group of neighbors who came together in opposition to the original
proposed development. We support historic preservation. We're not anti-development or anti-housing, whether affordable or market rate. We live in a beautiful historic neighborhood recognized at the local, state, and national levels. We want the character of the neighborhood to be
respected. It is highly unfortunate that the town included the historic structures at the Harrison Nassau intersection in adopting the AHO2 overlay ordinance in 2020. If the historic neighborhood had been acknowledged and its character respected from the start, we wouldn't have had to
go through this long arduous process. While compliant with AHO2, Mr. Barski's originally proposed development was not compliant with historic preservation ordinance or historic standards. It was too big, too massive, encroached on the Horner House,
and its design was out of character for Jugtown. It subsumed the original historic house. Also, not to be ignored, there are significant traffic problems at that intersection, which would have been exaggerated by the large number of new apartments. The scale of the current
plan seems reasonable to us. We met multiple times with Mr. Barski's group to work on changes that could be supported by Save Jugtown. Our concerns have been addressed and we support the current plan. As Mr. Barski has indicated, the result is a design that
is suitable for the neighborhood that preserves the Horn House unchanged but requires multiple variances. We appreciate the considerable work by the town and the town committees in their reviews of this important modest addition to the housing in Princeton.
This neighborhood is a key entrance to the town. The new design is compatible in size, number of stories, three, and appearance for the neighborhood. Again, we are in support. The neighborhood already has concerns over traffic volumes through the
intersection, especially in coming south on Harrison, where the red traffic signal is routinely ignored. Fewer fewer parking spaces seems fine to us. The runners will self- select knowing that parking may not be as convenient as otherwise. There is local bus service
including NJ Transit and the Princeton MUN, and the location is walkable and bikable to town and shopping. While traffic management is not a part of the development, we can only wish that the town would be more proactive in managing the many traffic violations at
this intersection. The corner is actively used by pedestrians, including children. The flagrant running of red lights, failure to observe, stop on red, and failure to adhere to the mark stop lines in the road are all very dangerous, especially for pedestrians.
Thank you for your attention uh tonight and again we support this project. >> Thank you. Okay, who's next? >> Uh I think >> can I ask him a question? Can I ask? >> Yes, you can. >> The previous speaker?
>> Yes. >> Uh how many people are in your organization and is it unanimous uh approval of this project? Um thanks for for u asking for clarification on that. There are six of
us who are active leaders in the organization. Um we have approximately 40 neighbors at its peak in actively opposing the original uh project. Um we did not don't have formal bylaws. We
don't have votes. Um but all of our members have been um asked about their opinion of this and the consensus was to support as the project has been revised. >> So every house that has a save jug town is not necessarily part of your
organization. >> Um not necessarily. Many people have um have had have save Jugtown signs around um the entirety of Princeton. Um they're obviously not all residents of Jugtown.
um and therefore don't have the same um they they they they have not been um as active. Um just because you have a sign doesn't mean you've been active in the organization. >> So So really when you say that you support this is is this six of you
support it or all 40 of you support it? >> Um a a difficult distinction because um I could say that I personally support it. Um and when uh canvased when the members of the um organization were
canvased and say um can we support this? Um the answer was yes. Um but it is not we don't it's not an organization that has bylaws um that would lead to formal voting on a proposal like this. >> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Mr. Zinc, are you next? >> Yes, I am. Thank you. Uh Mr. Cohen. Mr. Zinc, if you're comfortable, would you give us your address, please? >> Yes. I live at 54 Aken Avenue in >> Do you swear or affirm your testimony
this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, the the Nassau Harrison Street intersection is one of Princeton's most historic places. It has three corner buildings predating the
revolution and the fourth dates to the 1870s. A Quaker named Joseph her built his house at the current 344 Nassau Street in the 1760s with bricks made in Jugtown. The her house also represents
slave holding in Princeton as her manumitted his enslaved woman Elizabeth there in 1777. as former HPC member Elrich Endersby eloquently showed at the first HPC
meeting on this project uh on the previous proposal. The Her House retains rare examples of significant pre-revolutionary materials and craftsmanship on the interior. When the AHO2 was first proposed in uh
and first approved in draft form by the court in December 1919, it did not include the corner properties at the intersection. These were added later without any consideration of the Jugtown historic district or the existing
conditions at the intersection. The AHO2 was approved in the midst of the pandemic and residents only learned about it when the developer first proposed a massive building that would be built onto the her house would not
meet provisions of Princeton's HPC ordinance and would lead to unsafe pedestrian conditions on Harrison Street. HPC appropriately rejected this proposal at Safe Jug Town neighborhood meetings. Everyone agreed that new housing with
affordable units on the 344 Nassau parking lot and others in Jugtown would be fine, but new construction needed to take into consideration the historic district and the urban design conditions and the neighborhood character of
Jugtown. We proposed to the Barskis that a three-story building completely separated from the Her House designed to meet provisions of the HP ordinance and pulled back from Harrison Street would still provide affordable and other units
and also provide better pedestrian safety. Much to their credit, the Barskis were amendable to a compromise and we commend them and Chrisar and Marina for the many cordial interactions
we had with them in reaching the compromise. We also commend public officials and staff for their efforts on this compromise which HPC approved. Because AHO2 did not consider the
Jugtown Historic District or the Horner House or the existing conditions at the intersection, you are being asked to pro to approve variances for H AH2 provisions that make
no sense for this property. specifically the side and year and rear setbacks and the change in use. Her house has been in commercial use on both floors for decades and the narrow conditions on
Harrison Street make no sense for commercial use there. Regarding parking, Daniel and Craig have said that if Daniel has trouble renting units without parking, he will have to lower rents,
which will make the units more affordable. So, I don't think that the board should get too focused on the parking. Ultimately, the proposal in front of you represents a good balance between creating new housing
opportunities with affordable units and preserving Princeton's unique star character. It also kind of uniquely in this town represents a compromise where a private property owner, developer, and the neighborhood
came to an agreement to support a development project that meets objectives of the new master plan. Town officials and staff have also been supportive of this application and I urge you all to approve it. Thank you
very much. >> Welcome. >> Okay, board members, any questions of the witness or the uh speaker? Okay, Claudia, has anyone else indicated they'd like to speak?
>> Yes, Kathy Knight. >> Okay. Kathy, please be sworn in and proceed. Yeah, >> Miss Knight, if you'd be comfortable giving us your address, please. 335 Nassau Street. >> All righty. And do you swear or affirm
your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> I had some slides. I'm wondering if um Daniel or someone can put them up or how that will be handled. They're very short. It's not going to take long.
>> Five minutes. Yeah. No, it won't take that long. Um, first before I even get to these, I just want to say I went out on NASA Street. I am across the street from the property and can see it. It's diagonally across the street from me. I put my timer out there and in 2 minutes, sorry, in 3 minutes we had 14 cars. So,
even though it's a dangerous intersection, which people have testified, it's surprising how much the traffic slows down in this area at night. And I'm just mentioning it to Eve who particularly was concerned about about the bedrooms on this street. It is interesting that there's very little
traffic at night on Harrison and Nassau Street, which is just a really nice thing for the neighborhood. It's very comfortable. You get out in the street and not see a car in the in the middle of the night. Um >> Knight, just a question. Are you a member of Save Jug Town? >> I am. Yes.
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um when Daniel uh Barski approached us about the alternate um application, we sent some inspiration images and I briefly wanted to go through these with you. Um the three
images showed elegant treatments of facades that will be compatible in our opinion with the historic district. Um they showed traditional patterns of windows with contemporary sash. So, not not replicating a historic 6 over6 sash,
but but a contemporary window with a with a traditional pattern. Um, this was the first inspiration image we submitted. We just submitted three to them. Um, and a couple of comments on this one. There's been some discussion about the fence and um, mentioning about
how it did come from the Save Jugtown group. We just thought this was appropriate for the image of the building that we saw um and more appropriate than a plastic PVC fence or or a wooden fence and that's why they um put that in and we considered it a nice
upgrade that they were willing to to do. Um there's also um yeah that that was the main thing for this slide. Okay, next slide. Um the next slide has um Juliet balcony shown in the second floor. So if you look at
the proposed north application, north elevation from the applicant and you see our inspiration image, they introduced some Juliet balconies which is just a small touch but providing a little bit of contrast and quality to the project.
They also have um done some of the horizontal banding and articulation that we requested including um not only in the lower stories but at the cornis line. Um, and you know, again, they're they're light colored, plain, simple
buildings that we thought would be an elegant addition to the neighborhood. The last inspiration image is probably um the one that we got the most um kind of excitement from and and um and
connected with. Um it shows the it shows the inspiration image with the west elevation and in it you can see that the way the three-story building was mod um was the the scale was brought down by the horizontal banding that's introduced
here particularly if you notice between the second and third floor there's a historic uh horizontal band there's some recesses at the windows there's some on the bottom um floor there's an establisher that that brings in some
pyasters on on it that just breaks up the scale of it, provides some interest, but yet it's simple and quiet and won't overwhelm the historic building in any way. Um, the other comment I had on this one was the Sorry, Daniel, one more
second. That there are is a concrete curb or or a planting bed that you see. Now, we only have five feet, but that was our concept for providing some break between the residential units and the sidewalk. Um, Marina addressed that as
well. And so, if you see that, that would be um the inspiration for the concrete curb that is shown along Harrison Street, separating the garage at one point and the and the units at on the other side from the street.
And then the last thing is just that we think that this project will be a credit to the neighborhood, the architect, the developer in our town. So we we think it's a great example of collaboration and we appreciate the opportunity to play the role in it and that Daniel Barski was so open and allowed us to
work together and we hope that the the zoning board will see a way to work out the details and approve the project and let it move forward. Thank you. Thank >> Thank you. Right on the money. Okay. Claudia, anyone else like to speak on
behalf of this application? >> Um, Beatmunk, I don't know if I said your name right. >> Hello. >> Ma'am, >> are you comfortable giving us your address, please?
>> Yes, my address is 100 Albert Way, Princeton. And do you swear or affirm any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Five minutes, please. Thank you.
>> I just happened to listen to the presentation tonight. And as the person who lives in an apartment near on Witherspoon Street, I have several comments to make
about it. One is the lack of an elevator. The lack of an elevator will probably eliminate tenants that are elderly,
handicapped, or have young children. It will just be inconvenient for them to have to go up to another floor in order to be able to live there because they will have to
bring along walkers, carriages and other play things which will make life very difficult for them. Um, so I I see this as a place that for young professionals
or perhaps with families that have older children. The other thing is a lack of a package room. Uh, where I live, there are continually deliveries that are being made to the
apartments. Uh, you'd be amazed at how much traffic there is. um bringing in packages, food, so on and so forth. And there didn't appear to be any place for them to put it or for
people to receive it. So the these are just items that I thought you might want to think about for the convenience of the people that are going to live there. Thank you very much. It was a very interesting presentation.
>> Thank you for your comments. Okay. Uh Claudia, anyone else? >> There are no more hands. >> Okay. So, hearing no more comments, we'll
close the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Tar, would you like to make a statement before we go into executive session? >> Very, very briefly, uh you've heard a lot of testimony. I think we've tried to find experts. We've tried to work with the neighbors. It took well over a year
and a complete rework of the project, but we did it. The neighbors are happy. The the applicant is happy. I'd heard no particular objections to the use variance. I do remind you that it requires five affirmative votes
whereas the other variances only require four. We hope that we've persuaded you that you can vote in favor of this both as to the use and as to the bulk variances and we look forward to hearing it your vote. Thank you.
Okay, board members, we're going to go into executive session now. Let's discuss the project. One thing, it is 10:47. Um, do you want to try to finish this this
evening or do you want to try to cap it at 11:00? Comments? Anyone? Okay. Well, >> go ahead. >> I want to finish it. Let's keep going. >> I mean, we should be able to uh
hopefully get there. It's >> all right. Let's let's let's start and try to work towards that. >> I mean, why don't we start with the the D? >> Okay. >> And then >> So, anybody have do we want to have any comments, discussions? >> Yes, Donna.
I think at the last hearing it came out that I think one of our professionals said that the um the fire um marshall did not have a problem with this plan. I mean, I'm I'm kind of worried about ingress and egress
for emergency vehicles, but is that true that our fire marshall really did not raise any objections? >> That is true because there is a memo he issued. It's one line. I was looking for
it. >> Okay. I just want to make sure I had that right. Thank you. Yes, it was dated January 13, 2026. Please note, office of the fire official has reviewed the application packet. Currently, we
have no comments. I don't know if if he's reviewed anything more recently. Maybe staff can speak to that, but okay, >> that's as far as he commented. If he had a concern, I'm sure he would have
>> Okay. >> You know, pointed it out. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Board members, any other questions, comments? I question two things. I have I I agree with Michael's
analysis of the parking in relation to the AH2 ordinance itself. So I do have concerns about the number of cars and I have a concern about the uh drive aisle width.
I think 20 feet 25 is more than I think is necessary. I mean, typically 24 is is the number. This is a a closed in area and it's
tight and I think 20 is could potentially lead to some problems with people backing into the apartment wall. Um, I'm also a little concerned about the screening of the north elevation. I
mean, the the fence they propose is I think is attractive, but it's still going to allow headlights and everything else, and it replaces a very nice buffer that's there. I don't like a solid
vinyl fence that they talked about. So, those are my cons. And again, uh the the agreement on the part of the developer to to not use the rear unit for
uh an affordable unit is I think a very good concession. So I think one affordable unit on the first floor with the resolution of whether it's a two or three coming from the governing body.
Um, I think that's pretty much it. >> I I have a few thoughts. Um, I kind of feel at a disadvantage because this feels like a very complex and important decision to make and I feel like
everybody but us got a lot more time to talk about it and think about it. Um, and in just I'm just talking about the, you know, the Jug Town people who've worked on it for a long time and all the experts. I I'm definitely one who would
just assume get, you know, move things along and not hold people up. But I'm I'm just almost speaking from, you know, kind of a feeling that I feel like there all these different elements that we need to kind of evaluate and come to a
decision about. And it's just a lot to it's a lot to digest and even with that this is the second time we've talked about it. It feels like a lot. One arena that I feel like has maybe gotten less
attention was the environmental commission report. And I think it's um I know I marked some things. Um I I I'm not saying it was ignored, but um
so that's not a vote or or even I'm not even quite sure. I'm just saying that's that's how it feels to me tonight that there's a lot to kind of pull together and come up with an what is an important decision.
>> Okay, board members, any other questions, comments, things we should discuss? If not, if someone would like to make a motion. >> Well, as an initial motion, I I would
make a motion for the the D variance. I think some of the others um you know, maybe if if uh there's more discussion needed about some of the others, um we can do that. >> Well, Bernice, I guess so. You're saying that
you you want to make a motion to approve just the Dvariances right now? >> Um I'm not saying that it has to stop at that but as a first step because >> right um yeah it it um it seems like that is
necessary as >> it is necessary. It's just that it's just that the um these two devariances in particular are kind of really tied to um the entire development. I mean the
devariances are talking about um allowing office use where it's not permitted and residential use where it's not permitted. You know, kind of flipping the uses. But even with an approval on those
variances, there are other conditions as well as the bulk variances. So I mean, however the board wishes to proceed, but I'm I'm not sure um if that makes a lot of sense, but I know
Michael, you had a comment. Yeah, I you know I I don't see that the Dvariances did are tied to any of the bulk variances in my mind. I think they're stand alone.
>> Okay. Um I I think the variety of people on this board will have we'll have variety opinions on each of the we could have variety opinions on different bulk variances,
>> right? >> Yeah. I mean, if I was if I was the the applicant, I'd love to have a a vote on the bulk variances first. You know, people may have negative votes
on I mean on on the uh Dvariances first, excuse me. People may have different opinions on different bulk variances. Some of them may not pass, but I you know I agree with Bernice. And
your and your thought then is the other conditions that normally would be imposed uh compliance of the staff memos as testified by the applicant. Um referring this to the governing body as a condition of approval
regarding whether it's two two-bedroom affordables or a two-bedroom and a threebedroom as well as the testified location for the affordables. Your thought would be that will be
for another you know for the second vote tonight or the third vote. Yeah, that's what I Yeah, that that the D is about the use, right? And then you can go through the details. >> Okay. >> One by one, >> you know, we Yeah, I I see it that way.
And you know, >> okay, >> we can have up to, you know, six votes on the bulk variances individually plus the design waiver. And those conditions
can be attached to each of those votes. if you know prior to the vote being taken on each one. >> That seems >> Yeah. And if they if if each variance passes, then the conditions are in
place. If any individual variances get rejected, then they get rejected. But you know, anybody else have a thought? >> Okay.
I think it's a reasonable way to do it. Okay. Do we want to go through the variances and start to uh >> Oh, wait. You have a motion. You have I made the motion for the D. >> Yeah. To to to approve the two D variances.
>> So, you need a second. >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay. >> Claudia, can you call the role on the use? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. Miss Coulson. Miss
>> Was that a yes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shrivever? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tenmb? >> Yes. >> Miss Donna? >> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen? >> Yes.
Okay. Somebody want to bring up do you want to go through the list? >> Just what's the first variance of sideyard setback? >> Okay. >> I would make a motion.
>> Okay. >> To approve sideyard setback. The sideyard being in a sense the rear setback on Harrison Street. >> The side setback on Harrison
>> the side. So the northern property line. >> Is that right? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Tar has a question. >> No. Is that the five foot one along Harrison? >> Yes. >> Just to be clear. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. the five foot setback on
Harrison. Okay. All right. Do we have a second for that? >> I'll second. >> I'll second. I'm sorry. Go ahead, >> Bruce. >> Michael, just for clarification. So these additional conditions which we just talked about
um was your proposal that now we put these on the table and they are attaching now to each vote on the uh bulk variances without having to keep repeating them with every vote. Stay with me.
>> Regarding the units and council making a decision on the final decision on the units, I think it's important to clarify. I think they're just proposing two two bedrooms at this point. >> That's correct. That's correct. And I think
>> not a threebedroom and a twob. >> That is correct. That's what they're proposing. And my understanding is that that was uh generally acceptable to the board of course subject to the governing body.
>> Yeah. >> Y >> giving its approvals. Um all right. Well, then let me lay out these conditions as I understand them and then um as you take each vote on a variance
the we'll approach this that these conditions are continually attaching. So uh compliance with the staff memos as testified by the applicant in the actual resolution. I will spell out
the representations made by the applicant. Um the representation uh regarding the location of one affordable unit, one affordable two-bedroom unit on the third floor and
one affordable two-bedroom unit on the ground floor close oh sir to Harrison Street an approval by referral to the governing body and uh with respect to their
approval regarding the provision of two affordable twobedroom units. Um, and I believe that's the extent of the conditions the review memo by. Mr.
Bridger, Mr. Purcell, I believe also is setting forth the standard requirements uh that we would normally have including uh any and all third party required approvals. So, there's a motion now on the floor
for a sideyard setback. Both variants. I don't remember if there was a second. >> Yeah, I second it. >> Okay, got it. >> Okay. >> So, you want to take each one of these with a roll call vote then?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, Claudia, call the roll, please. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mrs. Shrivever, >> no.
>> Mr. Tenebell, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. What's the next one? The rear the one foot
>> excuse me >> the rear setback. >> Okay. >> The minimum is 15. The proposed is 10. >> Somebody somebody said one foot. Somebody said 10 foot. Let's be sure which one we're talking about. One is
the parking set back at one foot. One is the building set back at 10 foot. Choose one. Doesn't matter. I just want to make sure. >> I thought the rear was the one, but whatever it >> there's two at the rear. There's a one foot parking setback and a 10-ft
building setback. Both at the rear. Both at the rear. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, which which is which what what are you proposing to vote on now? The rear. >> Follow the list in the memo. That's what that's what I was trying to do. the rear
yard set back 1 foot 15's required >> or actually it's >> it's Wait a minute. Your memo says the proposed rear setback is 10 ft. >> That's for the building.
>> Okay. So, is that what you're voting on now? >> Yes. >> There are two. There's a parking setback and a building setback. Let's let's look at the same list. >> That's right. So, the list is in the review memo,
Bridger and Mr. PCEL. It's dated November 14, 2025. It's at the bottom of page two. So, you've just voted on the sideyard setback along Harrison Street. So, the next one in order is the rear
yard setback. The building required is 15 feet. The proposed is 10 feet. Okay. To approve. >> Okay. It's a motion. Is there a second? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Who? Who was? Yes, >> Donna. >> I second it. >> Miss Chen. >> Yes, >> Miss Coulson. >> Miss Coulson.
>> I know. Sorry, I would had my sound off. Yes, >> Mr. Floyd. >> Yes, >> Mr. Shrivever. >> No, >> Mr. Teneo. Yes, >> Miss Donna. >> Yes, >> Chairman Cohen.
>> Yes, >> thank you. >> Okay, next. >> Parking spaces, total required 19.1, provision of seven spaces, but because they're providing EV charging stations,
they're actually getting a credit for a total of nine. But there's act there's seven actual spaces. >> Um, excuse me. Can I ask for a clarification? As we're voting as we're voting on each variance, a no to one variance means a
no to the whole project. I'm understanding that accurately. >> If they don't get four positive votes, that's the that's what you mean by no. No, that's >> right. That's what I mean. That's what I mean by no. If I don't get four positive votes on any one of the single
variances, the whole project is a scrap. >> That's it doesn't pass. That's correct. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, we're talking about parking, >> correct? >> Comments. want to discuss it a little
more. >> I actually thought we had to have five affirmative votes on anything. Isn't that right? >> No. >> No, that's only for the use variances for the Dvariances. >> I see. >> That means the majority vote. >> All right. Now the other the other question on this
I don't know if there's been a motion anybody's moved it yet but the applicant had proposed a certain allocation of parking spaces which I think the board also had discussed. So,
whoever ends up making a motion, um I don't know if you want to include that in your motion, how it's allocated or seven spaces and you know, they they're allocated as the developer chooses to allocate them.
>> In other words, do all seven get devoted to the residential property or if >> if Mr. can yeah I mean choose >> yeah yeah some some allocation and if you don't choose to address it then um
>> I I I think what was key to to the board was having one at least certainly for the affordable unit so that probably should be included at a minimum >> okay yeah >> okay allocated to the handy capped um
two twobedroom affordable or >> yes that was the per that was the request um >> but Daniel is there already >> would would have a a dedicated spot
>> say that again please >> one of the twobedroom affordable units would have talked about dedicated spot and I I I think it's certainly very possible that the two-bedroom on the first floor, the handicap accessible one may be able to get utilize the handicap
stall. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, that's >> Yeah. >> Right. I I still don't really understand how um the
office, you know, parking interacts with with all the other you with the residents because I don't think the office people will get they'll just have to I guess f for themselves. And I I I don't think it's
going to I don't see how it's going to work that people will, you know, drive off to work given that we're in a culture of, you know, working from home. So I I I still feel like there's a lot of uncertainty about how that that all is going to work.
>> Let's break down this the seven again just so we all are on the same page here. One goes to the handicap to the accessible unit. three go three two additional ones go to the residential or three additional to
the other residential units. >> I originally proposed in my park management plan for three to go to the market rate residential and then two to go to commercial. You know, as Craig was testifying, I was
kind of thinking in my head saying there's a lot of commercial up and down Nassau Street with no parking. It may make sense to have all the parking in the rear for the residents only. And that would actually comply with the ordinance for the residential portion of the project. Uh, and the
commercial would have to I would have to make other arrangements offsite or find a suitable tenant >> like others along Nassau that that don't have that kind of parking requirement. So, I I can leave it up to the board, but as Craig was testifying, um, that
occurred to me that that that probably is also a sensible approach. >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again? >> Yeah. Yeah. When Craig was testifying, he was saying you technically by the ordinance need five and a half
>> round up to six parking spaces for the residential. Really, maybe all of those spaces back there should go towards the residential and the commercial would have no parking on site like a lot of other commercial in town. and the commercial would have to I would help
them secure parking offsite or find a suitable tenant that doesn't have those kind of doesn't have parking requirements. >> You have seven >> you have seven cars available. >> Right. >> So providing six for the residential would still
leave you one for the commercial. >> That's right. Yeah. So that's also probably suitable way >> board members. >> That seems like a better plan to me. >> Sounds like a better plan to me is, you know, me being one that was very
uncomfortable with the management plan and the lack of units for the residential. And this also goes back to what was being presented at historic preservation
when the office people were going to have to be off site but that the applicant changed that. So if if we go back to that then you know
>> okay so it's six residential one commercial. Someone want to make a motion? >> I move to approve. >> But how many will be allocated to the affordables? Let me make be clear.
>> And and he promised one across the street at 14 North Harrison. >> Well, but he can't do that. >> He owns it. >> But didn't you say that's going to change the parking? Didn't Justin say that would change the parking requirement there?
>> Well, I mean, yeah, exactly. There's no if you were to deed that that would require a variance there. >> Understand it's not you don't deed any of these parking spaces but he said he had three spaces that are routinely available. >> So just he made the offer and I thought
the chairman thought that was a good offer. I >> we could I guess we could put it in but we can't we can't enforce it. I don't think >> I don't see how you can enforce it. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I would just like to know for the
board because we've had a lot of these conversations recently um as we work on our fourth round ordinance uh with developers um about >> uh setting aside parking spaces for affordable units >> affordable.
>> Generally speaking, we cannot do that unless um we have a redevelopment plan, you know, a formal redevelopment plan. Um, so I would say the fact that 50% of the affordables here, Mr. Barski
is saying, you know, committing to a condition that the parking would go to them is a higher percentage than than what we're seeing elsewhere. And in many cases, there is no formal requirement. >> Okay. So, he's being a good guy again. So, so Justin, are you saying that the
board can't request the allocation of six spaces for residential and one for commercial? >> No. No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the um the condition that would require one to go to affirmatively to
the affordable unit um is better than what we're seeing elsewhere. I mean, obviously the numbers are so low here that, you know, it's only one space, but it's 50%. Um, but in a lot of other places, we we're having these conversations. Um, and it's not getting
to 50%. Let me put it that way. >> And, you know, I'm sorry to hear that, but I can believe it. Um >> you know um there was some weaknesses in my opinion in AO ordinances
and that is one of them and I spoke on it two years ago as I mentioned on the and it seemed to be news to one council member who was on the planning board and the planning board chair that
the affordable people are being shortch changed, you know. Um, now you say no one's agreeing to it is different between as opposed to you can't do it if you find
someone that's willing to agree. Mhm. >> Now, quite honestly, and this to the whole board, if you're going to free up the three that were, you know, the units going to the office and now use those
for residential. I'd like to see one each for each affordable. I don't think there's any reason why not except for the fact that you have the AO in place which is a weak ordinance. It's it's totally voluntary.
>> Oh, I I know Steve Con stepped away from the computer uh for a moment, but you know, >> I could hear. Sorry. >> Oh, hello Mr. Con. Uh as as safe Jubtown mentioned, I've spent years on this project. I spent a lot of effort to get
it here. And if tonight to get me over the hurdle, to see this project through, to get this affordable housing redevelopment, to h set a good precedent between neighbor and developer on making a nice plan, if I need to add a second affordable park install to the plan to
get over the hump, I'm um I'm willing to do that to to get us there tonight and see this project forward. something that my neighbors and I have worked pretty hard on getting to this point. So, um, if that's what, you know, I need to do
to get over the hump, that would be a 100% uh, affordable parking commitment, which is, as Justin mentioned, is a lot more than anyone else is doing, but I'm willing to do it here, and I think the rearrangement of parking can can lend to
that. >> Okay. All right. So, just for clarification then the who made the motion? Haron. Okay. So, >> okay. So, if I understand it, and I if
you're willing to amend your motion, there would be each affordable unit gets a reserved parking space, then three parking spaces for the remainder of the resolution of the residential,
and one parking space on site for commercial. Is that right? >> No, I think it's four for the others. There's seven all together. >> Gotcha. Gotcha. >> And no commercial, right? >> No. One commercial
>> and one I Well, >> then we're out of >> one commercial. >> There's a little confusion. The ADA stall is considered a parking stall in the parking count, but I can't I can't reserve the ADA stall for somebody because I don't know who's actually going to need it, right?
>> Uh so what I >> six >> I have six stalls. So yeah, and I again leave it up to the board. I I can commit two towards the affordable and the remaining four can go towards market residential or three to market residential and one towards commercial.
Um I think either would work. Um >> Daniel though the ADA space I assume if the ground floor affordable is handicap accessible then that person I'm assuming
>> that would count as one of yeah that would count as one of those spaces and it would free up an additional space for me to have for market or office and >> the parking plan says that the parking plan says if somebody's assigned the for the ADA space, then that frees up
another space in that category for one more of the other tenants. >> And I don't think it would be a guarantee that the person in that unit is necessarily um uh would have an ADA uh requirement,
>> right? But u believe it or not, the Maril Lynch, the primary guy at the Meil Lynch site across the street needed a handicap space. So it's you have you never know. Well, like uh Craig testified, there is a a high percentage of these affordable
units that um are handy, you know, handicap users reside in. So, there's a a good likelihood that uh strong likelihood that somebody may need it. But that's the way that I would deal with parking. So,
one space. >> We've got two two affordable and four residential. Do we want to have one commercial? >> No. >> You know, why why do we need to restrict
that? Why can't we just leave it to um to the developer to figure out whether he wants it to be commercial or residential and let him do that and we'll just stick with the two um >> the two affordables. >> Two affordable is that and that that
seems most reasonable. What do you guys think? >> I think it's reasonable. I mean, maybe he gets three tenants without cars and he wants to let a commercial person take the lease, >> right? Yeah. So, >> that's a fair point. I would have
preferred them all for residential, but um I I think you guys make good point. um commit the two to affordable and then you know if there are people if he decides to make it a commercial spot and there are people who won't live there
because they don't have a parking spot then you know maybe he'll change maybe not >> okay >> um >> how will you I guess you'll have lots of signs up saying this is private parking
Or so >> yeah, >> customers or or or um >> Well, are you going to >> guest won't park there? >> Are you going to We have one We have the two We have one affordable
one affordable handicapped unit and one market rate potentially handicapped unit. >> I'll prioritize it for the affordable unit. if there's um a need for it, >> right? And then the market rate, it
would still leave. It would still leave. So, the issue is going to be if in the market rate unit, first floor unit, which theoretically is an accessible unit, if there's nobody in it, can he use that for another residential
tenant? And I would I would think that he'd have to give priority to somebody who's handicapped. But if there is no one handicapped in that second in that first floor market rate unit that he could use
that as a residential normal residential parking space. >> Yeah. I I don't want to I don't want to beat this to death, but just just for my clarification >> is the motion now
>> one space for each affordable unit and the remainder of the spaces are for the developer to allocate. >> That's what I heard. >> Is that it? >> Yeah, >> that's it. Okay. So, we have a motion from Harland. Who's the second?
>> I will. Who's Okay. Bernice. Okay. Uh, Donna said, >> "Okay, thank you." >> Okay. Claudia, >> question for just Michael >> for Karen or >> Yes, >> maybe it's for Mr. Broski, Daniel
Bosski. Um, >> if the two affordable tenants, neither one are handicapped, >> right? To me, that means they're still getting two unit two two parking spaces.
>> Yeah, that's accurate. >> Yes, that's accurate. >> The priority has to go to somebody who's hand. That's if that's accurate. That's accurate. >> Yeah. I just don't want to see one of those seven go vacant. >> Yeah. Okay.
Claudia, call the roll, please. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> no. >> Mr. Tammo, >> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes.
>> German Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. What's next? >> Uh, the next is the percentage of compact parking spaces. >> The percentage of Say that again. >> Compact parking spaces.
>> Okay. And the proposal is for two >> two of the Well, it says two of the eight parking spaces. >> Derek, why is it two of the eight parking spaces? >> Only seven. >> There's only seven or 25% of the total
to be compact spaces. Variance relief is requested. I think it was the EV one of the one one of the spaces to be EV, but it it's seven spaces. There's >> So, they're proposing two of those be
compact parking. Is that correct? >> I have to check the plan. >> Well, now let's ask the let's ask the applicant. >> That's my >> That's correct. >> That is correct, too. It's 28%. >> 28 instead of 25, >> right? in instead of 15 and
>> instead of the 15. >> Yeah. Not 25. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Claudia. Still rounding up the You want to see where they are on the plan in the garage? >> It was the last two, weren't they? >> Yes. >> Yes. Up by Wards.
>> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Do we have a motion? I'll move to approve. >> We have a second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Any questions on the motion?
Gloria, call the roll, please. >> Ken, could you just say what the motion is again, please? uh to >> to have a higher percentage of compact parking stalls than is permissible. Um
what what is it supposed to be? 15 >> or capped at 15 and we're at 25. >> But we're providing they're providing two which percentage. >> But the truth is that they're providing two to help them get to the seven. If
they only provided one, then they would only have six spaces. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, >> that's true. >> And you know, they they say they know
there's compact cars out there. I quite honestly I I over a month and a half ago, I followed up and went to your properties. couple of them went to Hillyard's Witherspoon. Boy, there's a lot less compact cars
these days and a lot more midsize SUVs. >> Yeah. And when I went to to pay taxes on Monday at municipal hall, that whole parking lot, I would say 50%
were filled with midsize or more SUVs and very few comp compact cars. But I I I wanted to check I, you know, I went to the Lincoln Court Van Deenter property that you own. I went to uh what at the
at the bottom of Maple in the Tree Streets and I think you were next to um the uh Lla used to be Lelanca. I don't know if it's yours, but there aren't a lot of compacts like there used to be.
So, I didn't buy into your logic, but I tried to see if what you said was true. I think 40 probably 28% of them probably are compact. >> 28% of what?
>> You're you're you're you're I mean essentially you're right. There's less compact cars out on the road generally, but I um I think that certainly we'll find two people with compact cars here. And the town has generally lately been
supportive of giving more compact spaces. >> And that is something that a renter would have to look into while they're looking for where to rent. Um, you know, I just went from a compact car to an SUV. I wouldn't have done that if I could have, you know, or vice versa. If
I was looking for a place to stay and I have an SUV and I need a place to park, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take that apartment. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. We ready to call a roll? I just I just don't see how you manage
that, but I mean, that's what that's, you know, property management. They've got to make sure they've only got space for two compact cars. That's what happens at the end of the line on uh those last two spaces.
>> Daniel, do you imagine you would assign spaces at this point since we're getting so >> Well, yeah, they would have to be assigned. Numpact cars would have to be assigned as would handicap cars. >> Yeah. All the spaces in this kind of small parking arrangement would be assigned. And as part of the screening
process with tenants um and as part of showing with tenants, we tell them what kind of availability we have with parking. So in some instances, we may say we only have parking off site. It's located here. If it doesn't work for you, then this isn't
the right unit for you. or we have one compact stall left on site. If you have a compact car, you can park on site. If not, I need to make arrangements for you off of site. So, um, in my experience, I think filling two compact stalls here
isn't going to be a a big hurdle. >> I think it's probably more of a burden on you than it is the uh the market. >> Yeah, agree. Yeah. >> Yep. Okay, Claudia, call the roll, please. >> Miss Chen,
>> yes. >> Miss Coulson. >> Miss Coulson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd? >> Yes. >> Mr. Shrivever? >> No. >> Mr. Oh, I'm sorry. Miss Donna.
>> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> You missed me. What's next? >> What about >> I'm sorry, Haron. >> No. Okay, I'm Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next variance is parking setback.
>> Uh the one >> parking parking spaces are to be set back a minimum of 4 feet from the property line. Uh the applicant wishes to locate parking spaces within a foot of the property line. Well, now that we've improved the other
parking things, do we really have a choice here? >> Yeah, I think nothing works without this. So, I'll make >> my feeling is I was ready not to approve this, but I think the benefit of the project outweighs
this one foot issue. So, I support it. >> Uh, so I I'll second Bernice's motion. Any discussion? >> Uh, the fence I I gather we prefer that
sort of picket fence. I don't think that's a variance thing or but um yeah I would say it's not is that >> condition of approval. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I think it's better than the the solid PVC fence.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, that is now added as a condition approval. So, this is the six foot black >> painted >> aluminum picket fence. Okay. >> Yes. >> Got it.
Okay. And the one foot setback. >> Do we have any idea why they have a setback rule about parking? >> Well, to generally the setback rule for parking is to be able to provide a buffer, a planting buffer,
isn't Derek? Is that >> Yeah. And then also the so that the cars stay within the parking space where the curb blocks are and >> and they hang over a little bit. Yeah, >> good. Thank you. >> Any other discussion?
>> Claudia, please call the role. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mrs. Shrivever, >> no. >> Mr. Tanimon, >> yep.
Miss Donna. >> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Derek, what's next? >> Distance between buildings on the same lot. >> There uh should be 10 ft. Um there's a
variance for 8T and 5T. >> So basically five feet. Well, yeah. 8 foot and five. >> Okay. Any discussion? Somebody want to make a motion? >> Yes. >> Do you learn
that? >> What's that? >> Did somebody make a motion? >> They made >> I'll move I'll move approval. >> Okay. >> Second. I'll second. Okay. Any discussion?
Hey, Claudia. Call a roll, please. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> no. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes. >> Mr. Shrivever, >> no. >> Mr. Teneo,
>> yes. >> Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you. And last last is the design waiver. >> That's a drive aisle.
>> Yes. >> 24 is required. 20 is provided. >> Correct. >> Well, >> um, >> go ahead. >> No, go ahead. I I just had a a question maybe of uh I don't know if the traffic
or uh somebody who uh who took care of the um the the turning radiuses can address this. Is there anything that would help with um it is very tight um in terms of
I don't know would bumpers or ballards make it worse by reducing the amount of space in the drive aisle? >> Mr. Jakamart is here and ready to answer. Yeah, >> he was sworn last time in DC. >> Yeah, I I'm just wondering if there's
anything that should be introduced to um avoid people backing into the building or is that going to make it more difficult um >> any obstruction I have to believe is going to make it more difficult? >> Is there a mirror?
>> Sometimes we can see wooden boards that um uh help in this regard. Um I think that in general you know the turning radius that we showed show that it does work for um you know the typical cars
the standard cars and the compact cars and what has helped here is the fact that the parking stalls are all 9 ft wide that helps in terms of maneuvering in and out of the stalls. So that that is the picture and
I would say maybe a some kind of a wooden protection or some protection against the facade of the building would probably be appropriate and that doesn't take a lot of space. It's just a few inches. >> Yeah, >> I think the wall needs to be concrete block reinforced
with drywall work there or any even some sort of duro or some harder board. But I think quite frankly that's going to be up to the developer. He's got to protect the wall.
>> You know, there's any mirror that can be placed. >> What was that? >> Where some kind of a mirror so you know to help backing up or >> I don't think the mirror would help. Uh but you know what happens these days? Most there are more and more cars that
have a camera and have an a noise making machine. When you get closer you get the beep beep beep in the car. We have more and more cars that have that that will help in this regard. >> It's it becomes a management issue. I think you know it's it's in this in
this particular project it's inherent they don't have the room. It's also a question here, you know, when you talk of the 24 foot aisle that that we see the standard aisle like in a shopping center. In this case, no people know the parking lot because the
the the landlord will give permits will be the same people that will go in and out every day. They know the parking lot and so it's not like you have a lot with uh tourists or visitors coming in that don't know it. Um, >> so you have little service trucks that
are going to come in and go out. It's it's it's going to take getting used to. >> Yeah. >> Let me add to what Judge said. Um, typically the 24 ft parking uh serves
when you have stalls on both sides. to have parking stalls on both sides of the road of the parking aisle. >> Mhm. >> That's when you have 24 uh ft. But in this case, they providing just stalls on one side. So the 20 ft
will will be appropriate. >> Oh, I don't think it's Yeah. Okay. >> I think it should be a problem. >> Well, that matters. Thank you. >> All right. Someone like to make a motion.
>> I move to approve. >> Second. >> Discussion. >> Okay. Claudia, call the roll. >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes.
>> Mr. Shrivever, >> no. >> Mr. Tene, >> yes. Miss Donna, >> yes. >> Chairman Cohen, >> yes. >> Thank you, >> Derek. Is that it?
>> That is it. >> I think you approved it. I wasn't so sure. >> Looks that way. >> Wasn't so sure along the way, but we really do appreciate all the effort uh you all put into it. >> Okay,
thank you everybody. >> Okay, >> good night. Take care. >> All right. Well, Mr. Barski, thank you. >> Take care. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Well,
>> so I hear you, Steve. >> So, we just approved a building with almost every variance we could have imagined. >> Yep. It says uh >> and I have to tell you honestly my
concern has been is the parking in the cars. I drive through that intersection every day and when people are turning into the you know I'm just concerned about I've been concerned about the parking. That's why I was voting no.
you know, the the the drive. A lot of people leave whole earth, that whole earth parking lot and and come out through that drive and they turn right