board members. Um I will read the opening statement tonight uh and then we'll move to reorganization since uh this is the uh reorganization meeting of the board. This is a regular meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment
being held electronically via Zoom on January 14, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been
given by prominently posting the Sunshine Notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the official bulletin board at the Princeton Municipal Complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice
to the Princeton packet, town topics, the Times, the Tranonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on January 9, 2026, and has been posted to the municipal website pursuant to ex
executive order 107 due to the state of emergency in New Jersey regarding CO 19. Notice that during the declared state of emergency, all regular and special meetings of the Princeton zoning board of adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted
to the Princeton packet, town topics, and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April, 2020. Such notices have been placed on the official bulletin board at the Princeton Municipal Complex and on the Princeton
website and are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet, town topics, the Times, Trentonian, Comcast Media, and by filing copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton.
Notices have also been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. Uh, Claudia, if we could have the roll call. >> Miss Chen >> here. >> Miss Coulson here. >> Mr. Floyd
>> here. >> Mr. Shrivever >> here. >> Mr. Tenbomb >> here. >> Mr. Cohen >> here. >> Mr. Dokin >> here. >> Mr. Stein >> here. >> Miss Donna.
Thank you. Now I would like to uh open the floor for nominations for chair the board for 2026. I would like to nominate Steve Cohen. I think he's continued to do a really steady,
thoughtful job. Um and so I'd like to place his name in nomination. >> And do we have a second? >> Second. And do we have a nomination? A motion to close nominations? >> So moved. >> And a second.
>> Second. >> All right. And if we could have a roll call vote. Claudia. >> Miss Chen. >> Yes. >> Miss Coulson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd. >> Yes. >> Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Tenbomb. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dokin. Yes, >> Mr. Cohen. Can he vote himself? >> Yes, I can. >> Yes, I guess. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
>> All right, Mr. Chair. I I return control of the meeting to you. >> Well, thank you board members. I appreciate the vote of confidence. All right, >> so um we need a nomination for vice chairman. I'll nominate Stephen Trevor.
>> Right. >> Do we have second? >> I'll second it. >> And then uh Claudia, can we take a roll call vote? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson, >> yes. >> Mr. Floyd, >> yes.
>> Mr. Tano, >> yes. >> Mr. Docin, >> yes. Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes. >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I too thank you for the vote of confidence. >> You're welcome.
Um we have we have to appoint an attorney. The appointment of an attorney. Um how do we do that, Karen? Do we do we how do we actually do we nominate you? >> Yes. So, what we would need is a motion
if you would like to appoint me. Um, and a second. And I think then that we could also do one roll call vote to also cover the appointment of the secretary. So, we have a motion and a second to appoint me and then a motion and a second to
appoint Claudia. Then, we could combine those in one roll call vote. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, moved. Second. >> Second. >> And then a nomination for uh Claudia as
secretary. >> I move. I second. >> All righty. And then Claudia, if you could do roll call vote. >> Thank you. Board members. >> Miss Chen. >> Yes. >> Miss Coulson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Floyd. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tenbomb. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dokin. Yes. >> Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. We begin 2026.
Uh we have two applications this evening. Our first application which is case number Z25-73. Um well first actually uh Karen is noticing an order on this application. >> It is. It is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight.
>> Okay. All right. So again, case Z25-73, uh, 8 Valley Road, block 7,01, lot 36. This is for a time extension. Um, Mr. Bridger, can you please give us your analysis? >> Mr. Bridger, let me just first swear you
in for the evening. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, ma'am. I do. >> Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Um the applicant is uh James Muggler. He's the owner of 8 Valley Road. He's uh the that he was
granted a temporary D1 use variance um to permit two principal dwellings on a lot when only one is permitted. Um the application involved the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, a new principal residence, and the temporary retention of the existing principal
dwelling. Um the temporary D variant D1 variance was applied for to allow the applicant to reside in the existing principal dwelling while the new principal dwelling was being constructed. The resolution had a condition that required the existing principal dwelling to be demolished within 18 months of the date of the
publication which was July 9th 2024 or within 90 days of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the new principal resident whichever occurred first. Um the resolution also required the posting of a bond to guarantee the demolition of the existing principal dwelling and the applicant has
posted the bond. The new principal dwelling u has been framed to the roof uh started to have siding put on it. The zoning permit for the project is still valid and has not exceeded any time limits. The D1 variance to allow two principal dwellings on the lot will
expire on January 9th. It already has expired 2026. The applicant is still residing in the existing principal dwelling and is requesting a time extension regarding the time limitation of the D1 variance through August 1st, 2026.
Five affirmative votes are required. Um the extension of the the D1 variance is subject to the uh following requirement. No variance or other reef relief may be granted under the terms of this section unless such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. Um the following items should be considered when reviewing the use uh variance. The burden is proof is on the applicant to demonstrate special reasons for granting the variance as well as the
negative criteria. Um the applicant should discuss any special reasons um where the proposed use inherently benefits serves the public good such as school, public housing, hospital or where the owner would suffer undue hardship if required to use the property
in compliance with the permitted uses in the zone and where the use would serve the general welfare because the pro proposed site is particularly suited to the proposed use. Um that's just a brief synopsis of the request. Happy to answer any questions you might have.
>> I just have one on the uh on the agenda. It says that the extension, the MLUL extension is till April 18th of 2026. >> Uh no, that's uh
>> that is the 120 days. >> That's 120 days. Thank you, Claudia. Yep. Yep. That is >> okay. That's we have to act on this within 120 days. Okay. No problem. Thank you. I don't have any I don't have any
questions. Board members, any questions? >> Okay. >> Believe Mr. >> Is the applicant here or the >> I believe he is. >> We can't see him, but he uh >> Can everyone hear me? >> We can hear you, but there you go. Okay.
Yes, we can. Okay, >> we just need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, am I good to start? >> Yep. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, um, I have something short written. Uh, I want to read off of it because I don't want to miss anything and this is very important to me. Um, some of it is basically what um, Derek just said. Um, but I'll reread it uh just in case. Um, but for those of you
who may not know me, my name is James Mowglever and I'm the owner of and live at 8 Valley Road. Back in July of 2024, we were given approval to build a new house and ADU on our lot. Since we were planning on building the main house first on the empty house half of the lot, then later build the ADU where our
current house is. We were granted a D variance that would allow us to live on the lot during construction. This variance came with the condition that we demolish our current house within 18 months of the date of publication or within 90 days of the issuance of a temporary certificate of approval, whichever comes first. I'm here to
request a time extension of this variance that would set the deadline for us to demolish our current house to August 1st, 2026. Uh we began construction in early November and so far have finished the foundation, framing, sheathing, and roof. Utilities are being installed and windows will be put up within the next
two weeks. At our current pace, we expect to finish uh construction by the summer. Since construction began in November, we have only gotten use out of the variance, so to speak, for two months. The law has spent the majority of the time frame allowed by the Dvarian as a single family home as it has been for decades. If we're granted the
approval to demolish our current house by August 1st, it will have only spent a maximum of 8 months on the same lot as a construction site. We prematurely demolish our home before the new house is ready. We feel that the financial and logistical consequences would effectively stop our ability to continue construction. Because we have a mortgage
that uses our current house as collateral, premature demolition risks our mortgage being pulled by the bank. Since we've already p spent a large portion of our construction budget, we do not have the funds to pay off our current uh current mortgage in one large chunk. Even if we did have enough to pay
off the mortgage, we would then not have enough to continue paying our contractors. Would have to cancel scheduled jobs and material deliveries. With a demolished house and an unfinished construction site, premature demolition would effectively turn what is meant to be a two family lot into a zero family lot. If we granted a time
extension of the variance, we can keep construction moving smoothly and eventually refinance using the new house as collateral. Before I finish, I want to be clear on two things. One, as of today, January 14th, our lot consists of a house and a construction site, not two
principal dwellings. There has never been and there never will be two families living in the two existing structures at the same time. Two, as Eric mentioned, we have submitted a check to the township for the full cost of demolition and this check is currently being held in escrow as a performance guarantee. Demolition will
happen. We are just requesting an extension of time. We have been and will continue to follow the spirit of the law and I hope you, the board, will see it the same way. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. >> Board members, any questions? Okay, Karen. Um, yes.
>> Do we have to open this up to the public? >> Uh, yeah, I think you do. >> Okay. Uh, before we do that, do you want Do you want to say anything else before we open it for public comment? >> Are you asking me? >> Yes, please.
>> Um, nothing that I haven't already said. I'm happy if people do have um something to say. I'm happy to answer those uh concerns. >> Okay. All right. Um, Claudia, has there is there anybody in the audience who's indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this application?
>> There are no hands. >> Okay. We'll give it a second here. Okay. Uh, we'll close the public portion of the hearing. Again, you have the opportunity to speak before we vote. Um,
once again, if if anyone on the board has any concerns, any questions, I'm happy to answer those concerns and questions. Um, but otherwise, uh, I feel as though our situation's pretty, um, cut and dry. >> Yes. Okay. Um, now we'll go into
executive session. Board members, any questions, comments, or motions? Well, I think this is a very reasonable request. Um, I think it's clear from the owner that there'll only be one principal resident residence on the
property at any one time. It's under construction and that's moving along and I really see no reason not to grant this time extension. >> Thank you. I >> my only question my only question would
be is August 1st a realistic date? >> Um so uh my application was basically a letter and originally I asked for um October 30th or maybe November 1st uh to
kind of tie it as one year from the start of construction. Um I felt as though that might be too much to ask from the board. Uh, so while I'd love to have more time, I didn't want to sound, I guess, greedy, for lack of a better
term, but a longer extension would of course benefit us. >> I I I have one question. So, the town is holding I think approximately 17,000 to accomplish demolition if it doesn't happen.
>> Yeah. So the assumption would be then let me just confirm you want right now you want an extension to demolish your current home by August
let's just see what is the date you're looking for August is it 16th >> uh August 1st though I don't know if it's allowed >> if I am allowed to have slightly more time I would obviously ask for that but if it's not allowed I Then >> well I guess the issue for the board is
so the idea is that by August first if it's not demolished >> then you demolish the house >> then the town has to take the funds and demolish it. >> Yes. And and you guys don't have a bond um if I'm understanding the finances of it correctly. You don't have a bond um
as a performance guarantee but the full amount. So there's no chasing after me. Um, in case you need to pay for demolition, um, you have the funds for demolition. >> Are you are you comfortable with the, uh, with the eight months to get this
done or seven? Basically, >> um, like I said, I I I originally asked for um, maybe I think it was November 1st or October 30th. I didn't know if that sounded like too much to ask, so I brought it down. But I am allowed to ask
um for November 1st. That gives a full year. Basically, the idea is if we can't build one house in a year, that's more on us than on anything else. Um that gives us time for potential delays, which can happen. Um gives us time to
refinance. Uh the idea is to build the house, refinance using the new house as a collateral for the mortgage and then that would be able, you know, as we would refinance, we would pay off the mortgage after demolition um the
existing mortgage. So more time would give us more uh cushion. So if that is a possibility, I would of course ask for that. Karen, is that possible since the this this extension
was they asked for extension until August 1st. It was advertised like that. Can we can we give additional time? >> Well, I I I'm more concerned with the fact that and and it's really more a situation. Yes, the board has allowed
this in other cases, but keep in mind, I believe this application came in in Okay, so it was approved in June 2024 and now we are
uh 2026. So, I know Mr. Mugglever is saying if they can't build a home in a year, but actually there's been a lot more time than that. If I um if I could when I say build I mean spec like specifically from the day
that we um put a shovel in the ground. So obviously the permitting process took us more time than we expected but when I say build I specifically mean physically build. >> Well um >> though I understand what you're saying.
>> No no that that and I I understand with the argument you're making. It's just that uh for the board I think you would be wise to keep in mind that in other situations these same issues can arise.
So um >> are you worried that we would uh request another request another extension? >> Yes. >> I I don't know if it's allowed. It could be in the writing if this is approved. It could be in the writing that there are no more extensions and I'm I'm happy to agree to that if that is allowed.
Michael, did you want to say something? >> Um, yeah. Basically have a question because, uh, you know, you you settled on a proposed August 1st. >> Yeah. >> And I understand Well, for me, one of my
questions would be I assume your contractor gave you a date before August 1st that he'll be finished on the first. >> Sorry. What was that date? >> Um, we are acting as GC's because it is
a um prime personal home for personal use. Um, we did not have someone to tell us a date. So, when I came up with the date of August 1st, I basically negotiated by myself in my head. Got to that date and uh settled on it. >> First first time homeowner according to
your >> first time homeowner, first- time home builder. Yeah. >> And home builder and your your own GC. >> That is correct. Yeah. >> Um, well, as you're on GC, then you know
August 1st is a good date then. I really has have no problem giving a few more months, but you know, it's it's now it's even more up to you to deliver because you're a GC.
>> Yeah. No, I hear you and I understand I understand the concern of getting to that proposed date and worrying about me um coming in again, another application, another request for extension, and I obviously don't want that either. The
the goal is not to have this um I mean, I'm living on the construction site. I don't want to live on a construction site for a very long time. So, the goal is not to speed through it by any means, but to be efficient with our timing, more efficient than we were with the permitting process.
>> Well, I have no more questions. I I did hear our attorneys a little apprehension, though. >> What date would you be comfortable with? If the board is comfortable with it, I'd go back to my original um request, which
is um call it October 30th because that's the day that we got construction permits. If the board is comfortable with that, I'm comfortable with that. >> Okay. So, basically an extra three months. >> Yeah. The idea is um if it is allowed to add those three months now, then um we
don't have to have this conversation again in July or so. We can have that conversation now. Um, if the board is okay with it, I'm also very okay with it. Uh, >> Mr. Molever, nothing prevents you from coming in and asking for another extension. So,
>> to say that >> then you won't do it again. >> Yeah. >> You've told us that you have financial and logistic reasons why >> Yeah. >> you are coming in and asking for this. >> Okay. So, no one can predict what's going to
happen, but seems to me that from the date that you got this approval to now, you know, under ordinary circumstances, that would be sufficient time to build a new home. So, you've explained you're having other problems. So, I guess my
advice to the board would be it was noticed. He asked for August 1st. Um if this applicant needs more time and they think they can demonstrate good cause to the board, then you know they'd be able to come in again. >> Yeah.
>> And explain why during this entire time frame they could not build a new home. >> Let me ask one more question. Um, is your architect doing construction supervision or you are
>> are you doing that without her having >> No, she she's um very involved. I mean, we we talk um not on a daily, but at least on a weekly basis. Um she's very involved in what's going on. She knows
what the next steps are. Um she's been to the site multiple times. Um, she she's in the know of what's going on. >> My my my maybe I can narrow my question. >> Okay. >> Is is your architect >> have a contract for construction
supervision? >> Yes or no? >> I don't know. I I would um lean towards no, but I >> know you be party to the contract. >> I understand that, but um I don't have a solid answer for you >> then. Um yeah, I >> I wish I did, but I do not. I appreciate
that. With with you being the the GC, with you not knowing what the architect is, I can only support the August 1st. >> Okay, that's fair. >> I would suggest you get contracted with your architect. >> Yeah.
>> To help you officially. And they can probably help you dealing with any other um municipal and state codes. >> Yeah. you know, steps, but um
I'm not feeling comfortable with you as a first time construction. >> I understand that. I I I I get the apprehension. >> Yeah. >> I'm I move we approve this for August 1st.
>> I second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. All right. Claudia, can you call the role, please? >> Miss Chen, >> yes. >> Miss Coulson.
>> Miss Coulson, >> you're muted. >> Right. Um, yes, Mr. Floyd. >> Yes, >> Mr. Shrivever. >> Yes, >> Mr. Teneal. >> Yes, >> Mr. Dokin.
>> Yes. Chairman Cohen. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Well, thank you for coming before us. Good luck. >> Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate everyone's time. I've heard your concerns. I will make sure we don't speak again in six or or seven or so months. Um thank you
everyone for um the approval. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Okay. Um our next application is 344 Nassau Street.
Um, block 320 or excuse me, case number Z25-651, block 32.02, lot 214 in the AH2 zone. Uh, Karen, are all the notices in order?
>> Yes, the noticing is in order. The board has jurisdiction tonight. >> Okay. Uh Claudia is the applicant uh on site or in the audience as well as his or her witnesses.
>> Mr. Tar, who do you need over from the other side? >> Daniel Barski. >> Yeah, he should be he's moved over. >> Marina Rabina, George Jakamart. and Cray Ray Camp. Um, there we are. We've got them all.
Okay, good. Um, Mr. Bridget, can you give us the benefit of your memo, please? >> I Yes, sir. I'm gonna a little change up here. I'm going to hand off to uh Nathan Foot, the assistant uh director of planning because he's uh much better at that than I am. And uh what I'd like to
do is I will once he's done with his uh overview, I'll I'll address the variances. Um I also read the executive statement from the Princeton Environmental Commission into the record. And we also have uh David Shore uh tonight. He's the uh vice chair, I
believe, of the Historic Preservation Commission. And he will uh read the uh historic preservation uh commission's resolution or uh chairman's report from the hearing that they had uh reviewing this application. So um
>> Mr. is Mr. On CK, is he going to present? Um >> um >> yeah, he can obviously after uh Mr. uh Shore. Um >> yeah, he's he's here to answer questions, I think. >> Yeah,
>> usually as am I. >> Mr. Foot will swear you in. Do you swear affirm your testimony this evening? We'll be truthful. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. And uh thank you uh Mr. Bridger. Um and uh good evening
members of the board, members of the public, and uh members of the uh applicants uh team. Um as uh as Derek mentioned, uh my name is Nathan Footut. I'm the assistant planning director for the municipality of Princeton. Uh and what I'd like to do to start off with is
uh to share my screen. And let me just uh get that taken care of. share. There we go. Um, is that up? >> Yep. >> And this will be um Karen, this would be exhibit ZB1 or how do you want to
>> uh Yeah, that's fine. >> That's ZB1. >> Okay. Um, so this uh to give a description, this is an overhead image of the subject property and the surrounding area from the NJ parcel explorer website created by Ran University. Uh, as I mentioned, this
will be exhibit ZB1. Uh, so the subject property is identified as block 32.01, lot 214. Uh, highlighted in blue in the middle of the the screen. Uh, a two-story building currently occupied with office uses is located on the site has an address of 344 Nassau.
And as that address indicates, it is fronting along Nassau Street. Uh, it has a 16 space parking lot in the rear which is accessed from North Harrison Street. Uh portions of that uh 344 Nassau building uh do date back to the 18th and
19th centuries. Uh the property is part of the Jugtown Historic District uh which I'll come back to in just a moment. I think as uh Mr. Bridger already alluded to. Um there is a representative from the uh or multiple representatives from the HPC here uh to present their uh report.
Um, as mentioned, automobiles access the site from North Harrison Street, uh, at this, uh, location where my cursor is, uh, pointing. Um, the 16 spaces in the lot are reserved are marked with numbers except for two that are marked visitors only. Uh, there are no ADA accessible
spaces. Uh, you can't really see them, but uh, there are two dumpsters located in the northeast corner of the lot. Um, and employees, uh, this is an important point, employees of the adjacent, uh, Wert. Um, I might be butchering that name, so I apologize. Um the WERT realtors access their fivecar parking
lot uh which is located just about here where my cursor is um through uh through the site. So they pull in through North Harrison and then uh drive all the way through to that little parking area at the east side. Uh there's currently a no left turn sign out of that lot. So
really technically speaking uh any pe anybody leaving that parking area should be turning right uh to the north onto North Harrison. Uh sidewalks are found along the site on both Nassau Street uh and North Harrison Street. Uh two walkways extend through a green lawn uh
from the Nassau Street sidewalk uh to the front uh two front building entrances uh fronting along Nassau Street. Uh there are plantings and two mature trees within this lawn. Uh there are also additional plantings located along the exterior perimeters of the lot
um including within a small buffer um with the medical office uh to the north. So this site uh is a medical office and there is a small uh planting strip uh between the parking area and that medical office. Also uh there's a stone wall that can be found in uh front of a
portion of a chainlink fence uh in that same area on the north side of the site. Uh there are mostly commercial uses surrounding the properties. Um so the whole earth center uh we have a restaurant here as I mentioned the medical office. uh additional commercial
uses to the south and to the southeast and uh sorry southwest um and uh west and along Harrison North Harrison Street and then further out uh pretty much in all directions although a little bit further out to the east uh we do have
residential uses uh as well. Um uh one thing that uh I will note uh importantly is that uh these locations here uh at the whole earth center uh as well as multiple of the surrounding properties including that medical office that I just mentioned uh are identified as an
affordable housing site uh in the uh municipality of Princeton's uh fourth round uh housing element and fair share plan. Uh so the I the the ordinance is still being uh written and is still in that process. Uh but the idea is that eventually there'll
be an ordinance uh uh adopted by the council uh to allow for this site, the whole earth center site uh along with the surrounding areas uh the the surrounding properties. Um and I can list those into the record. Uh block
32.01, lots 173, 213, 221, and 222 uh will eventually become an affordable housing uh site. um some so and that'll take place sometime uh the ordinance will be adopted by uh March 31st and then sometime in the next 10 years that
should be uh developed into uh an affordable housing site. Uh the subject parcel uh is located in the neighborhood business district uh of the former bureau uh but it's also located in the affordable housing overlay 2 zone. Uh the proposed del uh
development does utilize the AH2 uh AHO2 standards uh but requires two D1 use variances uh that uh Mr. Bridger will address uh in a few minutes once I'm done with my uh presentation. Uh per section B17A-409
of the municipal code. Uh this is the one that deals with the uh affordable housing overlays. uh quote, "The affordable housing overlay zones are to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of affordable housing pursuant to the New Jersey Fair Housing Act uh and thereby comply with the
municipality's constitutional obligation to provide such housing um for low and moderate income households. More specifically, the AHO1 and AHO2 zones are established to incentivize redevelopment consisting of multif family residential uses with an affordable housing set aside along with
ground level retail service, commercial, and office uses to reinforce the existing development pattern of the corridor defined primarily uh by Nassau Street. Um and to provide a little bit more background uh on the affordable housing uh obligations, uh Princeton's fourth
round housing element uh plan element and fair share plan was adopted by the planning board on June 25th, 2025 and endorsed by the council on June 26th, 2025 following public hearings at each body. Uh the plan reflects Princeton's affordable housing obligation for the fourth round. Uh there is more detail in
uh the joint memo prepared by uh Mr. Justin Leco uh and myself dated January 9th, 2026. Uh but the important number uh is the prospective need uh generally requiring new construction uh and that number would be uh 364 units. Uh while
the affordable housing overlay two uh was adopted in 2020. Um actually let me move uh move forward with that that the the important point is that uh the obligation for the fourth round is 364 um uh units and uh really what the the
point of that is just uh um the uh uh that the municipality has uh an obligation to provide uh zoning for uh affordable housing um to meet the uh uh the number uh produced by the uh the
state there's there's more detail there's more background uh that goes into that but I don't want to uh um blavorver the point uh really that's the uh the main uh takeaway from that um now also in meeting its affordable housing obligations uh Princeton affordable housing projects must comply with what's
called the uniform housing affordability controls or U-Hack uh per U-Hack a certain percentage of affordable housing units uh must be two-bedroom units and a certain percentage of units must be three-bedroom units uh additionally a certain percentage of units must be restricted uh to each of the following
income groups very low income low-income and moderate income. Uh the municip uh municipality must keep track of the number of affordable units that have been approved and constructed uh how many bedrooms are in each unit uh and which income group they are restricted uh to.
Um and then in addition to that uh individual projects uh um are are required to also meet those U-Hack uh requirements. Um, so as I noted before, the subject property is located in the Jugtown Historic District. Uh, the applicant did
appear before the Historic Preservation Commission on December 1st, 2025. A written memorandum uh has been provided uh and representatives, as I mentioned, of the HPC are here uh to provide a verbal report to the board and answer any questions that may arise uh based on their report.
Um, this project does have a little bit of a history. Uh it was a planning board concept review uh and then a full major site plan application to the planning board. Uh however um and it was heard by the HPC at that time. Uh however that application with was uh withdrawn and
redesign and the project redesigned uh with the application now being made to the zoning board uh to uh due to the variances uh that are required. Um I'll let the applicant and the professionals detail the proposed project uh and as I mentioned Mr. Bridger will uh address
the uh the variances uh including the use and uh uh or devariances uh that are required for this project. Um but to uh to summarize, the applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story residential building with a total of 10 units. Um and that's going to be located
to the rear of the existing uh two-story structure uh that is currently used for office uh uses. Um so that that front building along Nassau uh will be used just for offices. Uh and that rear building is going to be uh built uh for
uh exclusively for um uh at least um uh as we are aware uh 10 um uh 10 um residential units. uh a parking area of seven spaces with one proposed ADA accessible space uh uh
with EV charging and one EV charging space uh is also going to uh be um provided. Um I believe the uh idea is that they're going to repave the existing um rear section of that parking area and redo it to provide that EV and restripe uh to provide the EV charging
and the ADA space. Um but I'll let the the uh the applicant confirm that in detail. Um, four bicycle parking spaces are shown at the eastern end of a walkway um between the existing and new buildings uh with the site plan indicating an additional eight long-term covered bicycle parking spaces at the
southern southern entrance to the new building and three bikes in an interior storage area just inside the entrance. Um the board's consulting traffic engineer uh as has already been mentioned uh Mr. Victor Anace is here and has provided a report regarding traffic and parking. Um some some
landscaping is also uh provided um with the uh proposal. Uh the board's consulting landscape architect, Mr. Dan Doberilski. Um I didn't see him before. Um I think the idea was that he was going to be a little bit late, but he should be here
uh in a bit to provide uh any uh to really answer any questions that might come up. But he did provide a report that was available for uh both the applicant and the uh the board's review um there. So getting to now to the more of the planning side, uh I do want to uh
highlight benefits and uh some concerns that uh we've raised. Um first as far as the benefits uh which again are detailed in our January 9th, 2026 report. Um the benefits include the provision of two affordable units to the municipality's
affordable uh housing obligations. Um many problematic trees would or should be removed as detailed by the municipal landscape architect. uh and the additional plantings that are proposed have the potential benefits for long uh local wildlife. Um the creation of market rate rental
units where surface parking exists uh which is a benefit for the quantity of units in Princeton uh as well as an aesthetic approve improvement or gateway into Princeton. So instead of having a parking lot uh sitting there, we have a uh a a newly constructed building, a modern
building that uh that still at the same time matches the historic um vernacular uh of the area, which uh I'll let the HPC uh representatives get into. Um and the residential units uh that are proposed will allow for a less car
dependent lifestyle to their tenants uh without passing on to them the costs of uh parking requirements. Um, as I noted, there are several concerns with the project. Uh, these, again, these are, uh, provided in greater detail in the January 9th memo. Um, one of our major
comments was in regards to the provision of a three-bedroom unit, uh, as an affordable unit. Um, uh, that's again based on uh, U-Hack uh, requirements. Um, based on communication from the applicant's attorney, it's our
understanding that, um, one two-bedroom and one threebedroom are now being proposed. But I'll let the uh um the applicants get into uh into that. The applicant and and their professionals get into that. Um if that is in fact uh what is being now being proposed um in
regards to parking uh our main concern is the management of what is being proposed. Uh with seven spaces, one of which is an ADA space and one is an EV charging space. Um the applicant really uh u we think should provide uh additional information on how parking is
going to be allocated uh between the different uses and really and also within the residential uses um especially making sure that uh you know the affordable uh units are provided uh you know parking spaces if uh if they are needed. Um just really the
allocation uh of those uh spaces amongst the residential uh tenants. um uh how parking for the office uses will be uh provided. Um one thing that's uh that uh I've noted from uh the um uh pre from testimony provided to the HPC
uh from the applicant is that the um office uses are going to be consolidated. Um what we would ask is just uh further clarification on how that affects the parking uh arrangement, how that is going to affect uh the uh parking need uh for those uh uh for
those tenants. So specifics of employees um and and that sort of thing. Um additionally, how traffic to the neighboring WERT property will be allowed for and controlled. Um so again uh the as the current proposal stands uh
uh traffic is still going to be um uh that parking area is going to still be there on the neighboring property. Um and so is there going to be some kind of arrangement some kind of deed uh restriction to provide for that uh
access uh to that uh parking area for that neighboring property? Um what kind of arrangement is going to be how how are those spaces going to be uh controlled? Um those are things that uh from a planning side uh we we want to make sure are uh um uh addressed. Um
we've also requested additional information on the clearance height of the parking area, turning diagrams and trash removal procedures. Um we would also uh ask uh the board to uh discuss the number of bic bicycle parking spaces. Uh the the number does meet that
required by the uh Princeton ordinance. Uh but given the dependence of this project on non-motorized personal uh that is pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation uh as well as public transportation uh we have we want to know if there's additional uh possibility of additional biking uh bike
parking um that could be provided. Um we are also concerned about the privacy of the ground floor units especially the one along North Harrison Street. Um there's no solar proposed on the roof. uh applicants should discuss why this is the case uh and should also discuss other green features of the uh of the
construction. Um and there are other comments from our planning memo. However, I'm going to defer those comments and questions to after the applicant's presentation. Um I'll now turn it back over to uh either um uh uh m the uh the chair uh or to uh
to Mr. Burgger. Uh thank you, >> Dr. Flip. Since you're going to continue to reference your January 9th, 2026 memo, uh why don't we make that an exhibit as well, we'll call it exhibit ZB2. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Um that and that was provided to the board. So I don't know if that uh um if that changes the uh >> No, that's okay. >> Okay. Still >> still Mark ZB2. Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. U Mr. Bridger, you want to continue with this opening?
>> Yes. Thank you, chairman. Um, as Nathan mentioned, the proper property requires or the project requires two use variants pursuant to NJSA405-70 um D1. Um, the AH2 affordable housing overlay zone um section B17A 418A
requires that uses in the floor above the ground floor be restricted to multifamily residences. the existing building will maintain the existing office use um and thus a use variance pursuant to uh NJSA40 col55-7D1
is required to permit a use that's not permitted and the AHO2 affordable housing overlay zone um section B17A 418B limits the uses on the ground floor to retail sales services office uses and
restaurants proposed building the uh new apartment building contains two residential affordable housing units on the ground floor and a a use variance is um required for this as well. Um the applicant should show special reasons uh and why the uh strict application of
this zoning prohibition of the requested use or development would deprive the applicant a reasonable use of the land or buildings involved and um evidence that the requested relief may be granted without detriment to the public good or impairment of the intent of the zoning plan. And they also should describe how
the proposal relates to the master plan and the proposal's impact on the neighborhood, the community's needs, and set forth the legal arguments for the proposal as well as other pertinent information. The project also requires several bulk variances. Um, sideyard
setback pursuant to section B17A 420A2. Um, a sideyard is not required. However, if one is provided, it must be a minimum of 10 ft. The proposed setback along Harrison Street is 5 ft. Um, a rear yard setback in accordance with section
B17A420A section 3 requires a minimum rear yard setback of 15 ft. The proposed setback is 10 ft and uh required parking spaces. The AHO2 uh section B17A 420 F1B requires 1.1
spaces for each unit after the first five residential units. Um the first five ren residential units are exempt from the parking requirements and the parking requirement for the office use in the existing building is subject to uh the parking requirement in the underlying zone. So the uh the total
required parking is 19.1 spaces 5.5 for the residential use and 13.6 for the required office uh parking. Seven spaces are pro provided on site. Two of which are EV charging stations. Um which results in uh two space credit for a
total of nine spaces provided on site. Um the percentage of compact parking spaces is limited per section B17A387 F1 um permits compact parking in lots of 100 cars or less but limits the
percentage of the compact spaces to 15%. The applicant is proposing two of the eight parking spaces or 25% of the total to be compact. Um, an additional variance is required for the parking setback in accordance with B17A 387C
which requires parking spaces to be set back a minimum of 4T from the property line. All the parking spaces are located within a foot of the property line. Um, I believe on the northern uh uh excuse me on the sides. Um distance between
buildings section 178382. Um this requires a minimum of 10 ft between the buildings on the same lot. The proposed distance uh between the buildings varies with a minimum of 5 ft, a maximum of 10 and a general distance of 8 ft. Variance relief is requested. Um a design waiver
in accordance with B17A 203 requires drive aisles in parking lot to be a minimum of 24 ft. Proposed drive aisle is 20 ft. Um and a variance is requested for that. Um I had written a lot about the
affordable housing unit breakdown. Um which is not something that's really the uh the individual characteristics of the affordable housing units is something that's under the uh domain of the zoning board. And I I think the applicant will provide additional information regarding the uh the the type of units that will
be set aside. So I will leave that for the applicant to fill in. Um, I'd like to touch upon the executive summary for the environmental commission. Um, the PEC commends the applicant in the Save Town Jugtown Community Group
for coming together to achieve a design that blends more gracefully into the historic context of the central Jugtown intersection of Harrison and Nassau Streets than the uh, first iteration did. Limiting the one story and five units was a big concession from the applicant. However, in reducing the mass
of the building and setting it apart from the Horner House while still trying to maximize the units provided, the new design raises concerns which are addressed below. Um the the environmental uh commission and municipal staff worked hard to develop
the green developer checklist and to be user friendly for the applicant and to be a necessary and valuable tool for the PEC to evaluate envir environmental costs and the benefits of the project. They have refound the sponsors the responses to many of the items in the checklist
for this application um to be unclear um making it difficult for the PEC to offer meaningful comments on them as it two examples. The de developer refuses to commit to using energy starrated appliances or installing a roof which is at least solar panel ready. Um
additional comments regarding the two affordable units uh are the sole apartments on the ground floor. Both apartments are also shown as being ADA compliant unless those apartments are intended to fill both affordable and accessible requirements. One of the units should be placed on an upper
floor. Affordable units are not to be grouped in one area of the building. The ground floor apartments are subject to more noise from the street and require more artificial light along the interior walkway and thus could be considered less desirable than the upper floor units. The new building should be all
electric. The reduced parking requested appears inadequate for the scope of the finished project. It is unrealistic to assume the offices will not need onsite parking given the streets surrounding the project do not allow on street parking. The applicant should procure formal legal arrangements
for parking close by for the application to be approved. The zoning board can determine an appropriate number of stalls based on occupancy. While recognizing that proposed bike parking is code compliant, if the reduced number of parking spaces is approved, there
will be likely a greater demand for bike parking. Um the applicant should uh increase the number of uh secured bike parking on site. There is no building section in the architectural plans. Um, a wellinssulated
envelope. Insulation beyond the requirement for the roof, walls, and floor of the apartments over the garage with well-insulated windows and high efficiency appliances is extremely important not just for reducing greenhouse gases, but to decrease utility cost crucial for the affordable
units. They suggest the P suggests using passive housing standards. Insulation and outsulation should be used to prevent thermal bridging and to to reduce light pollution. Only dark sky compliant and bug rated lighting on the exterior should be used. Consider using
dimmable lights and motion detectors. So the exterior lights are the only provided are only providing the light needed. Um other recommendations uh building and energy uh use forest steward council FSC certified wood and
locally sourced wood EV charging stations must be installed with only one charging station serving two stalls one of which is for the ADA stall the infrastructure for future EV chargers should be put in place during construction. Use rapidly renewable materials. Install heat pump HVAC and
hot water equipment. work with the Historic Preservation Commission to identify areas on the roof on both buildings where solar panels could be installed and make those areas solar ready or even have solar panels installed. Even better, ensure that the
mechanical units on the roof cannot be seen from the street. Um, interior solar shade should be installed on the windows to help minimize heat gain. Casement windows should open to catch the prevailing winds. Adding awning windows would allow some windows to be open for natural ventilation even when it is
raining. Plumbing fixtures should have a water sense label. Um the plans for storm water management and landscaping. The plan show a walkway with brick pattern between the buildings but it is called out as concrete walk. Permeable pavers should be used on the
interior walkway if applicable given the approximity to both building foundations with with the parking garage partially exposed to the elements. Porest pavement should be used in the garage at a minimum. For the parking stalls, the placement of the trash enclosure seems
problematic for two reasons. Unless the trash cans can be pushed through the lobby to the garage, the trash hauler will need to bring the bins down the walkway and around into the garage. Also, the trash enclo to 10 ft away from unit number two's bedroom windows windows, excuse me. Um,
if the solar panels cannot be placed on the roof, a rooftop patio could provide green space for the tenants. Uh transportation use best practices providing e bike charging stations to reduce the risk of fire in the building. Health avoid using red list materials to
improve air quality and reduce humidity which can cause mold. Supply units with an uh energy recover reventilator. Um provide a pergola with vegetation over the northern section of the parking garage that is exposed to help mitigate the effects of lighting and fumes on the
apartments above waste. the concrete and asphalt from the demolition of the parking lot and sidewalk should be recycled. Um, regarding the variances, the PC uh said approving the v use variance will allow
the horner house to remain as it is. They support those um both the use variances. The minimum setback of parking stalls to the property line which would provide less than 1 ft deep landscape strip is concerning as it may not be ample space for plants and trees to thrive. Um because unit one will face
Harrison Street, the 5-ft setback is not sufficient and should be denied. Trucks idle at the traffic light outside the uh on Harrison Street. Pollution and noise will be considerable. Privacy is also an issue, especially with the bedrooms placed at
Harrison Street. They're suggesting a 10-ft um setback and some landscaping that could mitigate those problems. The variance to provide less than 10 ft between buildings should be denied. The required 10 ft would provide some light and air to the apartments along the
southern facade along with some privacy in the first floor apartments. It would be hard to reduce the square footage of the apartments um but perhaps to alter the addition of the existing building leaving the ex historic portion untouched in the lease. The 5ft separation at unit
2 should be expanded to 10 ft. Um they've requested that the fire marshall should be consulted on the uh safety of the variance of this relief. And just as an aside, I did uh speak to the fire marshal and he did submit a uh a short memo saying he does not have any issues
with the application. Finally, uh comments and questions. Will parking be provided free of cost to the affordable units? The cost for parking for a vehicle as necessary to getting to and from work should not be a financial burden. How
will mail be delivered? Is there a secure area for packages? On page four of the zoning narratives, there's a mention of a possible elevator breakdown. Uh I don't know what there's no elevator that I know of in the plans. Um assuming that there will be clearing cleaning service for the common areas
and office spaces at 344 Nassau and that there will be a periodic need for maintenance. Where will those vehicles park? The architectural drawings do not indicate what standard measurement is used for the dimension making it hard to understand distances precisely when
reviewing the plans. Um, the PEC encourages greater diversity of bedroom units throughout the building. The applicants marketing department should consider whether including some one-bedroom apartments or studios would help decrease demand for parking spaces
but still provide the uh rental income needed to sustain the building. Um they have provided some uh alternative sketches for the uh accessible apartment building and the the parking lot layout. Um
but they don't have all the ADA spaces and that type of stuff. So I'm I'm sure the applicant has has seen that um information. That's the PEC. Sorry for the long-winded uh resuscitation of that. And now I'd like to hand off to David Shure unless
there's any questions. um on the variances. Michael Floyd has it. >> Um yeah, I and I'm not specifically to the variances although it is related a little bit. I just need some clarity on
applicable code um on two things. One is EV that's municipal code and is that correct? No, it's state >> and the provision of EV is that voluntary or
is that mandated? >> I believe it's mandated. >> It is mandated and the state statute then allows the credit to be given. So even though there's in actuality
seven actual parking spaces, the statute allows a credit for two more because the EV uh charging stations are being provided. >> Now >> so it's really an incentive for the developer and that's why the state I
guess did that. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. And um last related question on EV. Um does it specify an a number of EV? They're providing two. Do they have to provide two or they can
they provide one if if you know under the code? If not, maybe once we get to the >> Excuse. >> I'm not I I'm not sure, Michael. Sure. Christmas professionals might have.
>> Yeah. Um and then a question on the ADA compliant requirement unit um units. They're they're proposing to um is is it required that two be in a building of 10
units or if if you know that's a state uh code too. >> Yes. Um, >> the state requires all living units in rental apartments to be adaptable.
Um, I don't believe they require specific modified units or totally handicapped units, but they all need to be adaptable, which means it limits you on the modifications you can make.
So, effectively, it's a it's a specialized unit. >> Okay. you know, they Yeah. And maybe we can get clarification there. Their their application says they're going to be ADA compliant. And I I know there, like you said,
there's a difference between compliant and adaptable. You know, adaptable is putting the support behind the walls. If you are going to put handrails in, whatever. So if they're going to be
compliant then there's you know lower they can explain it but I wanted to know what's required and if what Steve said is correct it's >> you know adaptable. >> Yeah. >> But that that is
because it affects the affordable and we'll get there on that. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. >> Mr. Bridger, since you've spent some time presenting the um PEC Commission memo and your own memo, we'll make those
exhibit ZB3 and ZB4. >> Okay. >> And now I guess we need to swear in Mr. Shore. Mr. Shore, do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. I I think that um our our report has been has been been furnished ahead of time and I don't think everyone wants to hear me read it all in but I I do want to make a comment that I think is the salient point um in
that is um let me just go to it. We wanted to have this in our in our memo and which says representatives of Save Jugtown spoke during the hearing in support of the application noting that the applicant met with Save Jugtown on
several occasions and revised the design of the project to address their concerns. HVC members also commended the applicant for working in collaboration with Save Jugtown. Um, and then we had um like a number of points that were in
the memo which I think has been distributed. Um, if if you need me to read them, I can. But I I I think what our point of view is that they came for a concept review, then they came for a a first application that that didn't work
out so well and it was withdrawn, and then they came back with a plan that um we felt met uh a huge number of the concerns that we had to the point that we were satisfied that this this project could be recommended back to the zoning
board um with with um support from the HPC. Is that sufficient, Derek, or do you want me to go on? >> You're muted, Derek. >> I apologize. Um, you might want to touch on the conditions, if any, that the the
the HPC recommended. >> Sure. >> You know, I do I do think it it really isn't the longest memo in the world. I I I think you could have read it in the time. So, in case there's any board
members that haven't read read it, I I think just I'd like it to be read. It's not long. >> It's not long. >> Okay, I'll do my best. 344 Nassau Street LLC applicant has filed the above referenced application
with your board for major site plans with variances for design waiver approval to construct residential building with parking on the subject property. Applicant proposes to leave the existing structure intact and
construct a freestanding building. The new building will be three stories and will be positioned to be 5 to 10 ft behind the existing building. Parking is proposed to be provided under the second floor of the new building. The new
building is proposed to be used only for residential purposes and the existing building will be to be used as offices. The separation of uses avoids the need for interior demolition of the existing structure.
The new building will contain 10 two-bedroom apartments, two of which will be deed restricted for affordable housing. The project requires bulk variances for setback from Harrison Street, the rear yard setback, sideyard setback, number
of parking spaces, percentage of compact car parking spaces, parking setback, distance between building and same and buildings on the same lot. The project requires use variances to permit residential use on the ground floor of
the new building and office use on the upper floors of the existing building. The project requires a design waiver for the width of the parking lot drive aisle. The application was previously presented
before was was previously before the Princeton Historic Preservation Commission on February 2nd, 2023 for concept review. Following this review, a formal application was was filed with the HPC to partially design demolish
the existing structure to partially demolish the existing structure and construct a four-story residential building. Such application was heard at a special at special meetings on May 13th and 14th of 2024.
The HPC expressed concerns regarding the height, massing, and architectural design of the proposed structure. A neighborhood advocacy group called Saved Jugtown. Saved Jugtown was also
opposed the application. Applicant withdrew the application before the board. The current application is for revised design that addresses some of HPC's and save jug town's comments and uh recommendations.
The HPC serves in an advisory capacity to your board pursuant to section 10B-39 section 2 of the Princeton code where the developed uh for the development proposed by the applicant because the
subject property is located within the Jugtown Historic District and the NJ NRHP or New Jersey and National Register Historic District, Kings Highway, Upper Road, Lincoln Highway historic district.
Jugtown is a type two historic district which is subject to historic preservation plan review and recommendations to your board because the proposed actions are visible from the public right of way. The subject property is located on the
in the neighborhood business zoning district with an affordable housing overlay. The existing structure is known as the herer house with the oldest portions of the building dating to 1760 and 1824.
The major site plan and variance approvals sought by the applicant are intended to permit one reconfiguration of the parking lot and two construction of a 10 10-unit multifamily residential building. The revised plans address the
HPC's comments by one reducing the size of the new structure and two by preserving the herer house. The HPC held a hearing on the application at its meeting on December 1st of 2025
at which the applicant appeared and presented testimony of Daniel Barski who and there's a mistake in the in the in the letter here that calls him the architect, but he's the owner who was um qualified as an expert.
Application applicant presented two exhibits. a PowerPoint presentation marked as exhibit A-1 and oops and color samples marked as A2.
Representatives, as I read before, representatives of Save Jugtown spoke during the hearing in support of its application, noting that the applicant met with Save Jugtown on several occasions and revised the design of the project to address their concerns. HPC
members also commended the applicant uh for working collaboratively through um Save Judgetown. >> After considering the applicant's presentation, HPC submits the following comments and recommendation for your board's considerations.
One, comply with technical comments from the historic preservation officer set forth in the memo dated November 16th, 2025. Two, revise the plans to delineate the preserv preservation area to include the
area from the property line to the back edge of the walkway. The walkway is to be included in the preservation area with the understanding that the walkway will be improved to modern safety standards and the landscaping is subject to site plan approval by the board.
Three, revise the plans to provide details of the following. A lobby canopy. B. Exterior wall treatment for the ground floor of the proposed building. C. concrete curb
planter walls along the driveway. Four, revise the plans to to select an alternative tree to the Washington Hawthorne in consultation with historic preservation officer. Five, require developer to conduct ground
penetrating radar survey to prior to uh ground disturbance and abide by applicable archaeological protocol if anything of significance is discovered. Five, revise the plans to reflect the color of
the proposed building. Revise plan the color of the proposed building will be the same as the existing structure. The HBC was split on this issue with three members in support of the color being the same as the existing structure, one in support of a
different color in the same hue and one member being neutral. The HBO uh the historic preservation officer supported a different color in the same hue. The HBC appreciates the opportunity to submit these recommendations to your
board for uh in regard to this application. Thank you. >> Thank you. So the HPC specifically recommended approval of this application. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mr. Sher, just to confirm, you're the vice chair, correct, of the HPC? >> I am the vice chair and uh as of now when we have reorgan organization later in the month, that'll change. >> Okay. To be chair. >> To be chair. >> Okay. Uh, well then why don't we make
this an exhibit since Mr. Shore has now gone through the entire memo. Okay. All okay. Um, Mr. Bridger, um, are we done with the opening remarks?
>> Yeah, I believe so. I think, uh, people have questions. We have Dan Doberilski and Victor Anosika. Dan Doberilski landscape architect and Victor our traffic engineer consultant for questions uh regarding testimony, but I think we should start the applicant's uh presentation.
>> Okay. Well, I think I think it might not be a bad idea to ask questions as we go along with each presenter because I don't know if the uh if the hearing is we're going to get through it tonight and I don't want to let things hang out
there. So board members, do you have any question of of the presentation so far? >> Have a quick question for the historical preservation commissioner. >> Sure. >> When you're looking at historical preservation, are you just looking at
the front of a building? We um look at the exposure from the public rideway which in this case is on two streets. >> Okay. So you're not the concern of having building another building five or 10 feet away from the back of that
building is no doesn't present any problem for historic preservation. Well, it it it does to a degree that you know the the building should be um easily distinguishable as what is new and what is old. Um and
when we were discussing this with the applicant and understood that the um the that the limitation of their space really brought it to to very close to the building and um I guess we accepted that as as something
that just part of the the package here but it is separate. It's not, you know, it is it's not it's not touching it. So, um, it satisfies that need. Would we have liked to see it a little further? Sure. But in in this case, it would seem to be what what had to be worked out. >> It'll be pretty hard to take a view of
the back of the building, though. >> The back of the building, but the side of the building. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Any other questions, board members? >> Mr. Chair, since you've indicated you'd like board members to ask questions as
they go along, do you want to hear from Mr. Doberilski and Mr. Anikke now? Because they did both present um memorandums. >> Okay. Yes, I think I think it would be a good idea.
>> Okay. Uh let's see. I see Mr. Doberilski. We just need There he is. And Dan, you just need to unmute yourself. Good evening. >> Great. Uh, Dan, do you swear affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful?
>> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Dan Doilski, landscape architect for the municipality. I had a report of November 21st, 2025. Um, there are eight main comments in that. I'll kind of go through that
really quickly. The first comment is related to existing trees. Uh there are eight mature existing trees and 18 recently planted trees which are some arborite across the back of the property
identic identified on the plan. Um this is comment one which is broken in A through F. Um 1A talks about the arborite that occur there. They were six to seven feet tall. They four of those trees are dead. All of them will have to
be removed to construct the parking lot as proposed. Um there are a couple eight mature trees. Uh amongst the eight mature trees are three ash trees and one elm tree along the northern property line. Uh the ash closest to Harrison is
severely declining and the plans specify removal and the other two probably have emerald ashbor infestation and should be removed. Um the plans prevent proposed to preserve two of these trees uh possibly either due to the location on
the adjacent property or actually on the property line which would suggest shared ownership of the trees. However, they should be removed because they're probably uh failing and dying soon. The the elm tree is located at the northern
property bound uh does have some poor branching, but that in itself does not suggest that it should be removed. However, the reconstruction of the curb in this area will likely result in damage to the root system and the demise of the tree. Uh the the remaining
planting strip will be very narrow. It would be more practical to remove this tree and implement a new landscape plan, new landscape that better fits this space. And that's what they have proposed is to remove that tree. There is a Colorado spruce internal to the
site that will have to be removed for the existing building or the new building. There is a tree located on Harrison Street, a red maple uh pretty large tree. It's in close proximity to the new building entrance. Um and also a
new walk will be located in this area which will reduce the root zone of the tree. I not I commented that it'd be nice to have a tree in that location. However, there are overhead wires and the building is now encroaching on the canopy of that tree. As such, the root
zone and the canopy of that tree will be significantly reduced um and most likely uh will not allow for that tree to survive. And so I suggested that that tree should be removed and replaced.
Um, finally, there are um several mature existing trees along the edge of the parking lot shared with this lot and the edge um of the lot behind number 350 Nassau. These trees include three Tree of Heaven and one
Empress tree. These are highly invasive uh trees. One of them is a preferred host for spotted lantern fly. The concern is that once this building is constructed, it'll be much more difficult to remove these trees. So, it would seem pragmatic to consider and co
coordinate with the adjacent property owner on how they could be removed um either during construction of this property or depends upon what happens adjacent. Comment number two discusses the strip the narrow strip at
the back of the parking lot. Uh the ordinance establishes that when the strip is less than 4 foot width. Uh the visual screening can be achieved by a fence subject to the board or officer of
jurisdiction. The plan proposes a 6 foot high black aluminum picket fence which will not be providing screening and there's no planting proposed. This is where the existing arborites are that will be removed. Uh, so the the landscape design does not address the
screening of the parking lot from the adjacent I think it's the firehouse in that location along Harrison Street. Uh, the parking lot will be reconstructed and the fence will actually wrap around that corner and there are some low
evergreen plantings, ground cover plantings proposed in a five-foot strip. This is a practical approach for that location since sight distances will have to be maintained. There also there is a new one new understory tree the Washington Hawthorne
that HPC commented on at the west corner of the parking lot. This tree selection exhibits a height and canopy width that is shorter and narrower and actually fits the space very well in terms of the the growth and mature growth of the
tree. Um it is uh so that makes sense that type of tree whether it has to be that type. I mean there are other trees that could meet that same requirement. Um I'm not sure what the concern was from HPC regarding Washington Hawthorne but there are other options.
Excuse me. It is not clear if there's sufficient space to plant trees along the northern edge of the parking lot adjacent to the firehouse uh to provide shade for the parking lot as suggested by township code. However, trees to replace the ash and elm trees previously
noted to be removed may be able to be planted on the adjacent property if they can coordinate with them. Um, I mentioned that it if the red maple along Harrison is removed, it would make sense to add something back in there that
would fit the space similar to the with the wires in the building. Uh, comet six discusses the presence of English ivy, which is also an exotic invasive plant, uh, in the buffer strip of the property, and it would be desirable to remove that
uh, to one to get rid of an invasive species, but also the ivy will tend to invade the canopy of trees if it is left. Uh, comment seven talks about um looking to add some type of decorative pavement or
treatment along the Harrison Street entrance to kind of match the idea of the Nassau Street entrance. Um, and then comment eight discusses just some additional specifications for the
planting schedule on the landscape plan. Um, and that's all I have. >> Thank you. >> There's any questions? I have one. So, the the existing I guess dense planting screen that separates this from the adjacent
building next to it on Harrison Street will be eliminated and then just a a metal picket fence will be installed. So, there'll be no screening for the parking or the underside of the building from that side.
>> Correct. from the um the northern >> firehouse and then wrapping around the corner of towards Harrison. There's no screening. That'll be those just it'll be a black metal picket fence um with low landscape on the Harrison Street
frontage and nothing along the back where there's a really narrow strip. Most likely if that strip remains only one foot, they would need to coordinate with the adjacent firehouse for any landscape because it's going to end up on the property line at best.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, >> board members. Any questions of Mr. Doilski? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We'll make your memo ZB6. Exhibit CB6.
I I do have one question. >> Yes. >> I It's hard to imagine where any replacement trees would go given how tight this project seems to be on
the lot. So, is the requirement to replace trees that are taken just being you know, ignored. >> Well, there that's a separate code. There's a there is a code requirement
for a tree removal that you have to put trees back. There are exceptions for that for uh exotic species and also for trees that are dying or are failing. So, um I didn't analyze the it relative to
that. Typically, the arborist, the municipal arborist does that. They what code I was referring to was that when you have a parking lot, you're required to have some shade trees within the parking lot to shade the parking lot. And they don't meet that. They don't have any shade trees to meet that. And
if you wanted to try and do that, uh that northern property line would be where you'd have to do it. There's only one foot wide, so you can't do it on their property. They'd have to do it on the adjacent property at best. So should we there's a lot to remember and a lot
to think about in this whole project but it seems to me that that's something we would need to make a note of not to let that pass that that would be a requirement that they obtain an agreement with the other
property before >> yeah I don't know if the the fire company would agree to it or I'm not sure >> the fire company I isn't it isn't it the medical building or >> Yes. >> Yeah, that's that's correct. It is it is a medical office building.
>> Yeah, if I stand corrected, I I >> there's a drive Yeah, there was a there's a a drive immediately adjacent to the property, a single a single lane driveway that
connects the whole Earth Center parking the back of the office building with Harrison Street. So there's really no place to plant. >> And once that planting comes out, the fencing will will provide no screening
whatsoever. >> I misunderstood who owns that property. >> Okay. But that's good. We we're we're in agreement. >> So a waiver would be necessary if they can't do anything.
>> Well, they can't do anything by choice, right? >> Thank you. Okay, let's hear from the our traffic engineer during >> the CK. We'll just swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening? Will be truthful.
>> I do. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Nor. >> Good evening. >> Uh my my memo was dated November the 14th. I I have I have it broken down into two
sections. the traffic impact analysis and the site plan review. Um each section has five comments. Um I I'll just uh highlight the the
critical ones. The one I think have major concern uh for the traffic impact study or traffic impact analysis. The first comment is really more of a an acknowledgement. the
uh trip generation the amount of traffic that will be generated by the uh new residential will be very low. So uh I don't see any significant impact
uh from the traffic aspect of number of uh traffic volumes. Uh the critical the comment number two is of more concern because of uh parking uh the existing
parking for the office use uh is being eliminated. Uh right now there's 16 parking spaces there. Um after I read the report from the applicants traffic engineer I visited the site. I spent
about 3 hours in the morning uh to observe the usage at this location. Uh I noticed that uh for the 3 hours peak hour in the morning, nine spaces were fully occupied
uh out of the 16 spaces and then the remainder uh spaces were being turned over. you had uh vehicles that come park there for a short duration and then they leave. So there
was a uh a lot of uh usage of the parking spaces. So um the comment in the applicant's report that uh the office uses will result to
walking and biking uh was not supported by my observation and also uh there's also a comment in their report that the applicant will aim to leave parking spaces for existing uh
office uh you uh building. Uh that measure is uh recommended. If they can uh lease alternate parking spaces for the office building, I think
that will be an appropriate mitigation. But just uh assuming that everybody is going to walk and bike uh for the existing office uh I don't think is acceptable. Uh the second comment which will be my
second comment number three which I think uh needs to be addressed is the access to the white card building. they have five spaces to the north uh of the existing
office building. So the access to it is through uh the sites parking lot. Now just looking at the site plan, it just appears that the northern facade of the
new building will kind of uh constrain access into two of the parking spaces of that white card building. So I've asked that they provide a turning template
to demonstrate how uh vehicles will go into that parking space and come out without any uh constraint. Uh hopefully uh they'll provide that in testimony today. Um
the other I think that's that's the that's the two main comments for traffic traffic uh impact uh for the site plan. I did
uh make comments uh regarding the uh comment number six talks about the pedestrian access to the building. Um once the building is in place there will be no access to the office through the
back. The only access to the office will be from the front which will be Nassau Street. And right now I don't see any accessible parts through Nassau Nassau Street. So
I'm asking for uh clarity on that how uh pedestrians will assess uh NASA street uh through an ADA.
Uh the second comment that I I think uh should be addressed will be comment number eight. Uh again it talks about the the location
of the um garbage uh collection uh garbage uh trash area. It's in between the the new building and the existing office building. And the only crit only path through there is the
narrow four 4T sidewalk that separates the two building. So it's unclear how garbage collection will will be uh conducted from from this location. So I'm also
asking for testimony as to how uh they propose to collect garbage from this location. And then the last one uh is also about delivery. The delivery to the
office buildings again um access to the office is no longer through Harrison. Uh there's no entrance to the office from the back except from Nassau Street. So, if uh deliveries are going to be made to
the office buildings, uh it seems to me that the trucks will have to park on NASA street to be able to going through the front to deliver. And uh my concern is that trucks are
going to be parked on Naso Street. Uh whether it's for 5 minutes, they jump out to go deliver. Some deliveries might be a little longer. uh I I don't know how that is going to be addressed or if they have a plan as to where deliveries
will be made to the office. Uh also that that also pertains to maintenance trucks if there's any kind of maintenance that is going to be done in that area um where they will be parked uh to do all that. And then the final comment is
really about the just design standard uh asking that the uh sidewalk the minimum width of 5 ft be provided for new sidewalks. Uh right now they're showing 4 ft.
>> That's all. I'm ready to take any questions. >> I I have a question. >> Yes, please. Um going back to site plan review number number six.
Um when you say accessible path and when you use the word accessible accessibility are you I I think what you're saying is >> we're check
>> for anybody. Oh, okay. That's what I wasn't sure if you were saying it's not possible for anyone to get in or whether it was handicap accessibility. >> Yeah. When we talk about accessibility is more of handicap. >> Got it. >> Right. >> Well, that's
that's that's not good. But it's um if nobody could get in, that would be something want to address for sure, >> right? Yes. >> I have a quick question too if I might. You just mentioned deliveries to the
front building. How would deliveries to the apartments be done? >> Well, yeah. If anything, the there's a seven space parking lot uh for the apartments. So
the they they can still use that to deliver to their apartments because within their parking lot. >> Okay. And then they might have to back out to back out on the Harrison Street when they are done. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I have a question. >> Yes, certainly. >> Yeah. Um number five of the traffic impact the uh speaking about the leading pedestrian interval um
uh signal. Um I I just wanted to comment I I guess this is a matter that gets um taken up ultimately by um by who if if a signal change is to happen there. Um,
I'm curious about that because of the statement, "We're not aware of any safety concerns at this intersection." Um, I have been there on two occasions when pedestrians were hit there and, um,
emergency services called, but specifically, you know, at this Harrison Nassau intersection. Um >> so so the um
the leading pedestrian interval is typically used when you have uh high volume of pedestrians and they don't have enough time to cross the road. So you give them a lead phase
so they they you pass a lot of pedestrians before you start releasing the vehicles. But based on the counts and the data they have from the analysis, there's very low pedestrian crossings there. It's not a high volume
pedestrian. So they they can still cross using the typical uh walk and don't walk light without changing the system to give you a lead
pedestrian uh interval. And in any case, uh, Nassau Street is a is a DOT is a state road. >> Okay. >> So, uh, NJ DOT will have to approve any changes to the signal. >> Okay.
>> Not something the municipality can do by itself. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Uh, any other questions? >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> And we'll make Mr. Aniki's letter on DB7.
>> Okay. Um well, we've gone through our presentations basically. Uh we should start the applicants uh presentation. Mr. Toar, will you be starting it?
>> I I will. Can Can we take five minutes? Steve, >> we can. Okay, it is 9:13. We'll reconnect at 9:18. Hey, Claudia. >> Yes,
>> I was thinking u Clifford Zinc and uh Kathy Knight and Don Denny are with Save Jugtown and we were going to have them speak right after us. Could they be elevated if you can find them? >> Sure. There's Clifford Zinc.
>> Clifford Zinc, Kathy Knight, K Ni G-H, and Donald Denny. DN Y. Hey, Clifford. I don't see Kathy. Oh, >> I'll ask Clifford if he takes himself off mute. Hey, Clifford.
>> Hi, Chris. How are you? >> Fine, thanks. There's Don. So, it's just Don and Clifford that we're I asked that you be elevated. >> Um, actually, Kathy is in the process of logging on separately. >> Oh, okay. So, we'll we'll ask Claudia to
let her elevate her, too. We're gonna I we're looks to me like we're not going to finish tonight or even get to too much of you guys. We're going to Daniel has his slide presentation and uh George Jakamard and uh Craig Ray and Camp are
going to talk. So it's um we'll just see how far we get. They they usually like to knock off at 10:30. >> Okay. Everybody left as soon as you got here. >> Well, Kathy now is still not on. So maybe
>> there's an iPhone. I don't know who that is, though. >> It'll probably be probably Ca be Kathy. She was going to use her iPad, I think, to to get on. I know she's trying. I'm going to get a a glass of water.
Well, if you can let her know to raise her hand when she when she gets on No, no, no. >> Nope. >> Well, but they haven't seen yours yet. You always get frustrated when they, you know, they think I don't even know who's
next door or how many trees there are. You know, you just got to get your presentation on. I know, but it's been this way your whole lifetime. It's not going to change. >> Yes, you're not on mute. >> Yeah, just little things like the Cohen says.
>> Yes, you're not on mute. Yeah. Okay, it's uh 9:18. As uh soon as we get our board members back, we will reconvene. Okay, we're waiting for Harlon. Okay. All right. Um,
Mr. Toar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned when we got started, we've got four witnesses. I think we can save some time by getting them all sworn at once. Uh I'll ask Daniel Barski, Marina, Rubina, Georges, Jacamar, and Craig
Rancamp to be sworn and then in that order they could spell their last for the chair. >> Okay. Um All right. So, Mr. Ryan, Miss Rabina, Mr. Jacqu Maher and Mr.
Barski, do you all swear or affirm that your testimony this evening will be truthful? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, Daniel, you start. Spell your last. >> B A R S K Y. >> Marina.
>> R U B I N A >> J A C Q U E M A R T. Then Craig Encamp R a Hen K. >> Thanks everybody. Uh we're going to begin with a slide presentation uh from
Daniel Barski. And so uh I'm going to ask that uh that presentation be marked A1. I'm not sure exactly how many slides we'll end up with, but as we finish up, we'll identify it and make sure that Claudia has a list of uh each slide.
>> Okay, >> Daniel, can you share? >> I can. >> Here we go. Got it. All right. Hello, good evening. Uh, my name is Daniel Barski and I'll be presenting on behalf of the applicant for the project on 344 Nassau Street.
So, on slide one here is a historical picture of the building on 344 Nassau Street, which was originally built in 1760 and is also known as the Joseph Warner House. It's located in the neighborhood which is historically
called the Jugtown District. And much of this application is based on the preservation of this building and preserving its historic context within Princeton. The site is located on the corner of Nassau and Harrison Street and is oriented within the heart of Princeton.
Uh it's only several blocks from downtown from Princeton Shopping Center uh and multiple parks. It's also right next door to the Whole Earth Supermarket, uh, Bank of America, and has easy and, um, accessible
availability to public transportation. This is a picture of the front facade of the existing building looking from Nassau Street. On slide four is a picture of the side elevation looking from Harrison Street.
And on slide five is a picture of the rear of the existing building where the parking lot is located. Uh it's worth noting that the rear of this building was actually an an addition built in 1985 uh onto the existing historical
home. And on slide six is a picture of the rear property line uh which backs up to the uh foot and ankle doctor uh where you can see the parks where the cars park along the rear boundary line. Um
the proposed parking is virtually in the same place as it is right now but I'll come back to that later in the presentation. And one of the comments I heard is about screening and buffering trees. This is the buffering just so we can look at an image of what's actually
there. Right now on slide seven is the existing survey plan. The site is currently occupied by two floors of office space located on a quarter acre lot with an open parking lot in the rear. The office spaces
existing use is primarily compromised of um a a bunch of office tenants who lease small individual office spaces. Oftent times they're leasing spaces per room actually
and the property is located in the AHO2 zone which is illustrated here on slide eight. Um, the AHO2 zone partially overlaps with the edge of the historic Jugtown district. You can see the blue star on
the slide indicates the property's location. The affordable overlay zone was implemented to provide much neededed affordable housing in Princeton, which this project does incorporate. On these following slides 10 through 17, I'll just show some pictures of
surrounding buildings in the area for context of the neighborhood. On slide 10 is a picture of 341 Nassau Street which is on a caddy corner from 344. I included a reference to building height for some of the existing build
buildings to illustrate the rationale behind the design of our proposed new building which I'll cover a little bit later on. Uh this is the rear of the same building on 341 Nassau Street. 338 Nassau Street, which is um looking
across Harrison Street uh from our location. 342 Nassau Street, right next door. 350 Nassau Street is um uh the neighboring property, the WER building,
and 345 Nassau Street is directly across the street uh where Remax currently resides. 14 North Harrison Street is across the street on Harrison, uh just one lot down.
and the foot and ankle doctor on 11 North Harrison Street, which is directly in the rear. So, uh, I don't want to upset my friends at HPC and and neighbors by bringing up a past application, but it's important
that I give the history behind the approval process on this site. Over a year ago, I was in front of HPC presenting a proposal for a fourstory 40 foot five 45 foot high 16,000 square
foot addition. The proposal was to attach this addition onto the rear of the existing building over the parking lot. Here's a rendering of what that looked like. Uh to be clear, this rendering on slide 17 is not what we are proposing
today uh today's zoning board meeting and that's because we heard from HPC and many of the neighbors led by the Safe Jugtown group about their displeasure with the proposal. The consensus from the community was that this previous
proposal was not consistent with the historical district and neighborhood specifically in terms of scale and massing. Uh most importantly attaching a new building to the existing herer house was a major concern in preservation of
the historical significant of the site. The previous proposal um the previous design proposed 15 units among four stories in a much larger building than in my newly revised proposal.
But it's critical to note that this previous proposal was conforming to zoning in all respects. It met all the criteria for a fully conforming application after it went through the municipality's completeness process.
Moving forward with this previous proposal would mean that I wouldn't have to come here tonight in front of the zoning board for any relief. However, after hearing feedback from HPC and my neighbors, instead of plowing forward with a fully compliant application, we
decided to revise our proposal with the help and collaboration of Save Jugtown leadership uh to propose a new building that is more in line with the neighborhood and better preserves the historic streetscape. Now, on slide 22 is our revised building
proposal that we're here today to hopefully get approval from the zoning board for. This new design proposes a freestanding building, totally independent and detached um from the existing historical herer house. There will be no demolition or
disruption to the existing building. The height has been significantly reduced to 37 feet and only three stories. And this proposed building is significantly smaller in scale. It has one-third the
amount of square feet um and one-third the amount of units, 10 instead of 15. Um it's visually compatible with within its relationship to the neighborhood and does not detract from the neighborhood's historical elements. Thanks to
collaborating with our neighbors and HPC, we were able to come up with a plan that has been overwhelmingly overwhelmingly well wellreceived by HBC and the surrounding neighbors. We feel this new design complements and preserves the existing historical
building and provides while providing an aesthetic improvement to the gateway of Princeton. Um so this new proposal has 10 residential units. Two or 20% of them will be allocated to the affordable uh housing
obligation. The existing building, the existing her house is to remain under its existing use as a commercial space. And the following slides show 2D elevations from each side of the newly
proposed buildings. This is the west elevation facing Harrison Street. Uh the new building proposes pal lifestyle aluminum clad casement windows with lower window panels to mimic the same casing dimensions as on the exterior
facing doors. Juliet balconies are proposed on the north, south, and west elevations and exterior acrylic stucco proposed for the new building with the color to match the existing herer house. Um, the simple design is meant to distinguish this building from the historical herer
house, but still complement the historic nature of the site and of the neighborhood. Reducing the scale and massing of the building along with its simple design allows this proposed building to nestle into the site without greatly detracting from the Horner House. Again, critical to the design was
to have it freestanding and totally separate from the existing building. And um on slide 24 is the south elevation which faces the existing building on 344 Nassau,
the north elevation which faces the foot and ankle doctor and the east elevation which faces Wer. On slide 28 is a cross-section of the building floors and height. So, we're proposing a 35- ft assembly with a 1ft
parap pit totaling 36 feet. Uh, reducing the height from the original 45 foot high compliant application was important in establishing compatibility with the neighborhood. Uh, and as illustrated earlier, the height is in keeping with
other buildings within the immediate vicinity. And this reduced height and scale ensures that from Nassau Street, the new building will not be seen from either side of the road as depicted in this sighteline drawing. So standing on the sidewalk closest to the building and on
the opposite side of Nassau. The floor plans are relatively simple. There is access to a lobby from both the parking lot and the walkway. Um the building will be compromised of nine
two-bedroom apartments and one three-bedroom apartment um which is to be deeded for the affordable obligation. And two of these apartments are located here on the ground floor. There's a walk up stairway and four more units on the second floor and then four
more on the third. The second and third floor layouts are identical. So these are repeats for second and third floor. Um, and there's a proposed flat roof with a parapit where condensers will be located. Uh, they're located in the middle of the span, so they won't be
disruptive to the street and won't be visible. And, um, I heard this come up in one of the memo in one of the comments. I will install solar panel ready provisions during the course of construction. And then this revised plan, as we heard from the chairman, was encouraged and
later approved by HPC. The redesign again was coordinated with safe jugtown leaderships, our neighbors, and found to be compatible and aesthetically appropriate. Separating the new from the old, not disturbing the historic corner house in any way, and
reducing the scale and massing of the new building was an essential component of this compromise that HPC voted to approve. Um, here's a colored up version of the site plan which depicts the existing and proposed buildings. Shaded in purple is
the existing herer house and in yellow the proposed new building. Again with no attachments or de demolition proposed. Totally preserving the existing building and providing a separation buffer was critical. There is a 5 foot to 10 foot
separation between old and new with a walkway connecting the two buildings to the sidewalk on Harrison Street. The darker yellow um shading is the first floor footprint of the new building and the lighter shaded yellow is the second and third
floor overhang. The parking lot is mostly covered by the new building which includes seven parking stalls. Uh the trash and recycling is located uh in the corner of the lot between the buildings behind a fenced enclosure where it does
not impact any street scapes but is easily accessible for the existing and new buildings to access. And also bicycle parking has been addressed with bike storage distributed under the lobby door canopy outdoor at the end of the walkway and
inside the building. The new building setback is increased to five feet from Harrison Street right away, which allows the new construction to be behind the existing Horner House, which reduces the impact of the
development on the historic building. But as a result of separating the buildings, um though this newer version, this new iteration is much smaller in scales, uh variances were triggered. So it it was
compliant but um oddly enough much bigger addition much bigger project now it's been scaled back uh in mass and in scale separated but variances were triggered and I'll give
an overview of these variances and then speak to each in detail. So there's a sideyard variance where we provide five feet and the requirement is strangely enough zero feet or 10 feet. Um there is
a rear yard variance where we provide uh 10 feet and 15 feet is required. Um and then of course there's the use variance for having residential on the first floor of the newly proposed building and retaining existing office space on the second floor of the
existing building. So to go through these one at a time, uh the sideyard setback again requires zero or 10. We originally had zero feet which was compliant. Um but after our discussions with Save Jug Town and HPC
um decided that wouldn't be appropriate and again though compliant in our original application uh and 10 ft was set back too far given already the reduced footprint of the proposed structure. So with collaboration from Save Jugtown, we
determined 5 feet would be an appropriate setback to preserve the significance of the existing Horner House and at 5T um the new building is set back behind that existing structure. The rear yard setback is proposed at 10
feet and uh to be clear the 10 feet is to the second and third floor overhang which is the orange line on the screen. Uh it's more like 30 ft to the first floor footprint which is the yellow line. Um the property backs up to an active
easement uh which is uh there to access the whole earth supermarket parking lot and it backs up the site backs up to a commercial zone where currently the foot and ankle doctor is located. So, we feel the impact is minimal considering there's not residential zoning in the
rear and that we are still providing a 10-ft buffer. Um, and there is a setback variance request for parking buffer where 4 feet is required and we are providing one foot. Again, the property backs up to an
easement and a commercial zone and the proposed parking along the rear is virtually in the same place as the existing conditions. Uh, as I showed in one of the earlier slides, there is a fence proposed along the rear of the property in front of the parking stalls.
Um, the use variant specifically uh is triggered from preservation of the existing building. So under the AHO2, only commercial use is permitted on the ground floor and only residential on floors above. In this instance, we're
proposing to preserve the existing use on both the first and second floor office spaces in the existing Horner House. Uh the use there is to remain unchanged, but it does trigger a variance in the HO2. And in the rear we
are proposing two residences on the ground level uh which is a variance condition under the AHO2. This is partly due to the fact that there is a requirement to provide a certain percentage of uh affordable units to be handicap accessible units to
the for affordable housing. And since there's no elevator in the building, the ground floor access fulfills that requirement. Additionally, permitting residences on the ground floor allows us to reduce the height of the building. So, um that's how we're able to fully
eliminate the fourth story, which was essential in preserving the historic nature of this site. And there is a variance request under section 382-383 for minimum building separation for
structures on the same property. The minimum distance requirement is 10 feet between buildings on the same lot. Um the slide on slide 37 illustrates the variance conditions under section 382
383. Um and to be clear, the proposal meets the requirements to adjacent neighbors. We're seeking relief for minimum distance between buildings on the same lot. Illustrated here are the separations between old and new. The distances vary from five feet where it's
non-conforming to 10 feet where it is conforming. The new building can't be distanced any further without triggering triggering many other bulk variances and parking variances. Uh most importantly, the proposed separations meet fire and
building code. It's worth noting too that the existing building is fully sprinklered and the proposed building will be sprinklered as well. In the original proposal, because the buildings were attached, uh there was room for parking on both sides of the
drywall. Now that the buildings are separated, parking has been reduced, triggering variances in relation to parking. Um number of stalls, eight where 19 are required. Percentage of compact stalls, 25% where 15% are
permitted. and width of the drive aisle 20 feet where 24 feet is required. The plan calls for seven parking spaces um and gives eight with the credit for EV charging. 19 spaces are required
mostly due in my opinion to the outdated underlying parking requirements for office space uh that I'll discuss on the next slide. There are two compact stalls proposed where only one is permitted and a 20 foot drive aisle where 24 feet is required. And I have a traffic expert
who will testify on parking more generally, but I can speak to parking as a local resident, developer, and landlord. Um, I'll start off by saying we believe the parking variances are justified in the attempt to preserve
the historic corner house. um distinguishing and separating the buildings reduced the total number of parking stalls from compliant amount that we were supply providing to non-compliant. Um more importantly,
this site is located in town. Um it has walkable and bikable access to supermarkets, banks, the Princeton Shopping Center, and downtown as I illustrated in an earlier slide. And as someone who owns other rentals in town,
a handful on Nassau Street, for people who are looking to rent in this part of town, parking is not a priority. They rent at these locations for the walkability and bikeability along with easy access to public transportation and downtown amenities. We have buildings
down the street with zero parking on-site or off-site for almost identical two-bedroom units. These units are sought out by people who do not have a car and enjoy the benefit of renting at a discounted rate due to that fact. Um that also includes commercial space.
Garden State Tile, for instance, uh located on 205 Nassau Street rents the whole first floor from us with no parking. Their employees work in town. They walk to work. Um, generally the town has changed its thinking about
parking requirements as witnessed in the planner's memo. RSIs has also redefined its criteria of parking demands from minimum to maximum number of parking spaces. This is because uh typically the market will determine the demand for rentals that do not provide parking and
landlords just simply adjust their rates to fill units. This of course is true and results in cheaper rents for people who will be walking, biking, and using public transport. Uh the existing office space
is currently being rented out per room. Um um so they're little individual office spaces. Uh but after construction, the new building uh will be repurposed, rented out at a discounted rate to a
single tenant. whose parking demands will match the site's availability. And I I can't disclose at the moment, but we're already in talks with a single-use tenant who has minimum parking needs. Um, also,
uh, currently on the site, I do lease out spaces to other people that are not renting my office spaces there. So, um, the current conditions really aren't reflective of market demands. Um I think
also it's worth mentioning the underlying parking requirements for the site. Uh according to the AHO2, five and a half spaces are required for the 10 residential units. However, a whopping 15 spaces are required for the existing
commercial building which uses the outdated underlying zoning. We feel that this is a gross overestimation of actual parking needs in downtown. Um lastly on parking generally uh the
reduced amount of parking stalls also ensures less traffic in and out of the site on a relatively busy corner uh ensuring safer conditions with less overall traffic coming in and out. And um we were able to secure leases and
letter of intents from neighboring properties with available spaces to rent. I don't anticipate I'll need all these spaces uh to fill the units, but this is just to illustrate that there's lots of parking available in this part of town in the vicinity. Um also, Bank
of America, they don't issue letters of intent, but they verbally represented that they would lease spaces as well once we're ready to commit to a lease with them. And uh before I address comments from the municipal memos and while we're on
the topic of parking, um I'd like to introduce Shores Jakamar, our traffic consultant expert. Uh I guess I'll allow I'll allow Chris Tar to qualify him and give him a few moments to speak further about parking.
>> Uh thank you, Daniel. Uh George, you've testified in Princeton many times, but just for those uh members of the board and the public who aren't aware, uh I'm going to read from your resume. You are a New Jersey professional planner.
You're a professional engineer in California, New Jersey, and New York. You have a master of science degree in urban planning from Stanford University. And uh interestingly, you've been a consultant to Princeton University on parking and traffic matters since 1988.
U you've worked on projects such as Arts and Transit, the Lake Campus u and uh and and a separate project for Palmer Square traffic uh modifications. Uh and and and I and I I I believe that
you could be called the father of the roundabouts that exist on faculty road. >> Well, I think we'll we'll Mr. Tar, we will accept uh we'll accept Mr. Jacqum as an expert in his field. Um if you'd
like to continue discussing his qualifications just for audience benefit, that's fine. But we'll accept it. >> I appreciate that, Chair. We'll move right along. Thank you and good evening chairman and members of the commission. Um my name is
George Lucker and I'll address some of the parking and traffic concerns that were raised. This particular u figure that we're looking at shows the turning movements for some of the parking spaces in the lot. You know the concern here is
that the park the aisle the circulation aisle is 20 ft when a kind of a standard aisle let's say in a shopping center tends to be 24 ft and you know that that width is not cause is not required
because of the two-way circulation. It's required because of the vehicles to get in and out of the parking stalls for the maneuvering and to in in some cases you know like in a shopping center where we have a lot of maneuvers in and out people stay you know half an hour an
hour we want those maneuvers to occur relatively easily. Uh in this case we can show you can see that these vehicles can get in and out of the parking stalls and there's no in my view there's no concern that there would be any
difficulty in the circulation especially in this case the parking stalls will be a sign so people know the parking lot they will be used to get in and out and they tend to stay longer you know whether it's all night or all day so it works well and what helps in this case
also is that the park each of the standard parking stalls here is 9 ft wide. So that in itself helps the maneuver in and out of the space. The other advantage of the 20ft aisle here is in you know where the aisle meets the
sidewalk. So the this conflict area between pedestrians and cars is less and so it makes it a more pleasant and pedestrian environment and a safer pedestrian environment. Um I want to mention the you know the
the discussion on the parking uh situation that yeah there are seven spaces here uh the code requires more spaces and I agree with what um Mr. Barski said the code is excessive you
know the this these kind of spaces office spaces in this area would not need 15 parking spaces. I checked what the Institute of Transportation Engineers says for this size of office buildings and it tends to be more in the
range of 9 ft as opposed to 14 or 15 ft what your code would require. And I think the fact you know the way the applicant approaches it as the landlord who has obligations you know to fill this building whether the residential portions or the office portions and he
will find solutions in the neighborhood. I think is a very practical approach, a realistic approach for any kind of you know denser area in an urban environment. Um I want to pro mention also the left
turn prohibition. I think Mr. Anosik suggested today there's an 247 left turn prohibition. Um and that can stay but I agree with Mr. Anosiki. It could be changed to just peak hours. That's
really up to the municipality. I think the applicant is flexible in that regard. Um I just want to correct something that Mr. Anosik said. We in our report we do
not say that the office tenants will shift to walking, bicycling and commuting by bus. uh some of them will but I agree also with what Mr. Baski said, you know, he will look for other locations for people to park. So, uh, I
think not everyone obviously will shift to walking, bicycling or or buses. There is a parking demand there and I think it can be addressed. Um, there's one minor correction also we have in our report. We mentioned the 4ft sidewalk. If you look at the site plan, the engineer site
plan, it is actually a 5-ft sidewalk. It's a sidewalk that's substantially better than what's there today. Today, if you look at the photo of the existing sidewalk, there's an utility pole in the middle. It's not even I think there's not enough room for a person in a
wheelchair to pass there. Finally, the comment on the LPI, the leading pedestrian interval. In the original application, we mentioned that there's a possibility to make the intersection a little bit more pedestrian friendly. the LPI that's
typically implemented, you know, and and we have them a lot in New York City. It's a very common treatment and it's not caused specifically by the volume of pedestrians. It's not a question that we have to do it to accommodate larger
volumes. The real purpose of it is to make the pedestan crossing safer. To let the pedestrian start crossing four, five, six seconds earlier before the cars get a green time so they can claim the sidewalk before the cars are
starting and you kind of eliminate the competition between the pedestrians and cars that turn and may be in conflict. So it's seen as a very good alternative to what we call sometimes the exclusive pedestrian phase where all cars would be
stopped and the pedestrians have a completely protected phase. That's just a comment u in regards to what was mentioned earlier and it is up to DOT to implement it. Um I think
that's all my presentation. Uh I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Um, Mr. Jacqum, you're you're saying that you feel that the uh that there is adequate parking in the area. Um, I
think it in my opinion, we'd like to get some sort of concrete commitment for parking because you are going from a requirement of or an existing parking lot of 19 spaces. I think I had that correct.
uh down to seven and you're increasing the you're going from 16 spaces down to seven and you're increasing significantly the population on the site. So I think it's important that uh
that there be a commitment for the parking to go with this application. >> I think that Mr. Barski addressed that by having um uh signed and I don't know
exactly he he may have to explain it in more detail. Uh he did show I think three agreements with neighboring properties that seem to be prepared to accom accommodate some of the parking demand. >> Well, I guess we'll see when when when
he submits those to us formally as part of the application. I think that was in his presentation, one of the slides preceding the slide that we're looking at. Okay. >> Well, I haven't seen I haven't seen anything come before us other than what
he showed us in the slide. So, I'd like to see something more formal. >> Okay. >> Chairman. >> Yes. >> Uh Nathan Foot has his is his his hand raised. >> Yes, please.
>> Uh yes. Sorry. I apologize. I'm not sure what the uh procedure is uh for the uh zoning board whether I should uh jump jump in or raise my hand. So, um thank you Derek. Um yeah, I just want to echo uh Mr. Sherman, what you uh what you mentioned.
Um you know, the the the part a couple of things. First of all, obviously parking agreements uh displayed on a a screen nice, but I think we do need to review what those agreements actually say. It can't just be, you know, a few seconds on a screen. Um now whether
that's um part of an approval process or whether that needs to be formal um before uh an approval that's up to the the board uh the board's discretion. Um but the other thing about it um I don't know if it's possible to bring up a map
right now. Uh again I wasn't able to jot down what those addresses were. Um but again there is uh this this large site next to it that is going to be or at least is slated to be an affordable housing uh development site. Um and if
if those are the properties that are being um presented that presents that that was probably going to present a problem later on down the line. And so we just want to get ahead of any of that uh before it does become uh an uh an
issue. Um, so that's that's um one aspect. I actually have several things I just want to go through real quick. Um, >> um, uh, Nathan, if you don't mind, can I finish going through my memo and presentation and then because maybe I'm going to be addressing some of your questions as I continue on with the
memos. >> Um, yeah. Uh, Mr. Chairman, if that's, uh, the pleasure of the board, then I >> Why don't we let Why don't we let uh, Mr. foot finish first and then you can step in.
Okay. Um yeah, so I'll go through this quickly. First of all, uh Mr. Jacmar uh mentioned assigned parking. Uh I just uh and and this might one of the things that uh Mr. Barski is going to touch on. Uh but I, you know, I do want to hear more about the uh assigned uh parking.
um you know it's the the materials that have been submitted or at least that have been uh reviewed um are a little um the details on that aren't uh clear. Um so I just want uh additional would like to hear additional details on those. Um
the uh there's several points of uh clarification that I I'll get to at a different uh a different time. Um, and then, uh, one one thing that, uh, I'm I'm looking at the plans and I just want to, uh, uh, to have, um, addressed
somewhat, uh, I'm just realizing now that there are columns, uh, in between some of the parking spaces. Um, and, uh, you know, I if, if we could just get some clarification on how that's affecting the width, uh, the width at those, uh, those particular parking
spaces. Um, as I said, I have uh other comments, but I'm going to let those uh let those go uh for the moment and let the uh presentation uh continue on. >> Okay. >> All right, Mr. Barski. >> If I could, Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes, please. >> I'm just I thought you were taking questions on parking. >> Yes, please. >> And um if I could ask um Mr. Barski because I I may have missed it. I may not have I didn't
regarding the office tenants. I didn't hear you, but maybe I I just was thinking of something else at the time. Um say that they will not be provided parking on the parking lot. >> Is that still
>> is that still the case? >> No, I didn't say that. I actually a little bit later on I talk about how I intend to distribute the parking. >> Oh, okay. >> Comings. Yeah. >> Okay. I didn't miss. Okay.
>> Okay. Mr. Barski, did you want to make a comment? >> I'm just going to I'll go through the memo items uh the comments from the reports and maybe some of the some of your questions will be answered uh through these. So from the zoning
engineering memo um storm water management is not required for this development. Uh the current standard for drywall should be applied for the relocated drywall and only storm water runoff from the roof shall be directed to the drywall. Um I reviewed
this with my civil engineer. It's it's um a little bit of a challenge for us. Um >> well excuse me excuse me for a second. I think actually we were talking about traffic and parking and I I assume you're going to have your
civil engineer make a presentation. >> No, he's in an emergency. He's not able to make it tonight. >> Well, I mean, I don't I don't think we're going to finish tonight, but were you planning on having him present? >> No,
>> I'm sorry. No, he was he doesn't have any slides or I mean if there's specific questions for him, we can ask him at the next meeting. >> Well, I mean it's not up to us to ask him questions. He's it's up to him to make a presentation and then based on
his presentation, we would respond. So, I think given the nature of this application, it's a good idea if he presented. So, it's your call, but I think it's important. I mean, we're we're looking
at the circulation through the site dimensionally. You're bringing up issues with regard to drainage. Um, there's access to the adjacent properties. So, I it's probably not a bad idea to have the civil engineer make a presentation, but
again, your decision. comment or nothing. >> My engineer is not here tonight. Um, he had an emergency. He that he wasn't preparing to uh present anything. I can prepare him to
come up with something to present. But I have a traffic expert here. I have a planner here. I have an attorney here. I'm here myself. I would like to go through the rest of my presentation. And then if the board feels that there needs
to be specific testimony from my engineer, then um I'm I'm happy to to bring him in. And he would have been >> fair enough. I mean, that's family emergency. >> That's that's your decision. That's fine. I'm okay with that. Um, all right.
So, well, I guess we're talking about parking and circulation right now. And then we can when we're done with that, we can start to talk about, you know, your presentation relative to
engineering or the rest of the project. >> Steve, I have a question. Mhm. >> Yes. >> A parking question. I think in Mr. Foot's earlier testimony, he said that there is currently
a rightaway into the WER parking lot. >> Yes. >> What happened to that? >> There is, and that's on one of my further slides. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to get in early. >> That's okay. Um, so,
uh, the the building, what slide am I on here? Um, yeah, so there was a question about access to the WER parking lot area and we've intentionally designed the building in a manner to preserve the WER
access by orienting the drive aisle so that they can access their lot. And we have a lease in place that has been in effect for the last 50 years. and uh that is to continue moving forward. So
um you know I posted it up here but uh it's been in place for almost 50 years 49 years and the building was specifically designed to continue to allow access for WER. >> No, I think that's pretty clear on the
drawings. You're right. Um and and then to answer to answer a question about uh parking, um one of the parking spaces um will be reserved for the three-bedroom
affordable unit. Um two parking spaces for the office space and then the remaining three um for the market rate res residential units.
>> Okay. and and the is that do you plan on submitting any formal um agreements for parking for additional cars? >> I mean, I can submit formal leases. Uh
they're not deed spaces. You know, I'm so I can certainly submit it before the next meeting. I think really the the point of that and Bank of America, by the way, says when you start paying us is when we'll give you a lease. And at the moment, I lease spaces on my own
property. So, I have no need to rent out other spaces. So, I can't provide a lease without signing a year agreement with them. That creates some challenges. I think really the purpose is just to illustrate there's a lot of parking around. It's it's basically a a large
area of parking lots all within the vicinity. Um, but more importantly, what I was focusing on in my testimony is that, you know, I have other properties very similar to this one where there is no parking on-site or off-site, and
there's still a demand to rent commercial space and rent residences, and sometimes that means I need to discount my units. Um, the reality is a tenant with two children and three cars, they're going to go rent at Avalon Bay.
they're not going to rent at my building. And so, um, if anything, I think it's an improvement from what's there now, which is a whole lot of cars coming in and out. Um, and again given the location
and it being right in the heart of Princeton, you know, really lends itself to like my other properties down Nassau Street, people who will rent that really don't have a need for a car. >> Okay. All right. I have one last
question for Mr. Jacqu Mart. Um, can you comment on deliveries both residential and and uh the office? I mean the the office at least discussion was they would theoretically stop on Nassau
Street which is impractical especially in front of the building and um deliveries I guess to the residential portion they'd have to drive in to the building and back out onto Harrison Street.
So, if you don't mind, George is I kind of this is something we prepared. Um, I'll speak to it and then you can add to it. Um, so first off, on Nassau Street about 150 ft up from this building, uh, going
towards Kingston, there is on there is parking on like actual parking on the street. Um but um to address both deliveries and hauling um and just logistically I'll talk about it al
together um the logistics of tenant move in move out deliveries um on other similar properties downtown and busier areas we've dealt with um these kind of overall building logistics through management coordination and
communication. So, in everyone's lease, we provide a guideline to move in and move out time slots that are in off peak traffic hours. The U-Haul trucks are limited to 15 ft and smaller so that uh they meet the clearances of 10 ft to get
into this um drive aisle. And then a staging area will be provided in front of the building to unload tenant possessions. Um and then we restrict we restrict these times to off peak hours where it won't affect residents who park on site and we notify the existing
residents of that time window where the access will be blocked. Um here specifically for trash um a private hauler with a small truck will be contracted to dispose of trash and
recycling again on off peak hours where it won't cause a disruption to tenants who park on site. They'll pull into the drive aisle. you can see here in this exhibit. Uh if you follow the green arrows on the screen, um go down the sidewalk,
roll the receptacles down the walkway, down the sidewalk, load the truck. Um and after the hauling is complete, the small truck uh will use the handicap striping area, which to do the to turn around and come forward out of the site.
And that handicap striking area is only used for offloading for handicap purposes. And um as I said, we'll do this contract the hauler to do this in off peak hours. And actually the reality on this site is as opposed to other sites I have,
there's a lot more room to do deliveries and hauling um than a lot of other downtown sites along Nassau Street and otherwise. But this is the way we anticipated to deal with that. And because we're contracting a private hauler, you know, we can dictate the
requirements of pickup times and, you know, uh, size of garbage trucks and all the rest. >> Um, Mr. Chairman, uh, while we look at this drawing here, I can answer the question that was raised by Mr. Foot. Uh
you can see here the columns are every two or three spaces and they are located and they're kind of you can see they're double lines so that the parking spaces themselves are actually 9 ft you know for the standard spaces or 7 and 1/2 for
the compact spaces. It looks like in maybe in one location, you know, to the right of that handicapped sign, maybe the column is a little bit wider than those lanes than the lines, but it is pract from a practical point of view, it is 9 ft. And what is actually the most
critical look the columns are located at the at more or less ideal location, you know, because the car needs the width at the entry to those parking spots. So the columns in this case are really not an
issue uh in my opinion. >> Okay. Um and I assume then that there are just that one row of columns that are shown in the parking. There's no other columns in there. So they're going to use the wall of the building as a a
bearing wall to support whatever beams and structure they have. >> That's my understanding. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh Mr. chairman. Uh just real quick, um so all this information then about the
uh deliveries um in some way they would need to we we just would like to have that some way in writing on the plans or in some way uh as a condition of approval just to make sure that all that information is there uh and you know
will be um adhered to uh moving further into the the future assuming that this is uh approved. Um, you know, we just want to make sure that deliveries are made and especially the the garbage truck pickups uh are in fact going to be done in the uh uh in
that parking area as shown and not I don't think Mr. Barski would allow it to happen. Uh but uh just for the sake of the uh municipality um that we have some kind of uh uh written documentation that this is uh this is what the the plan is
going to be. Um, and the same thing with the assigned uh parking. Uh, again, some kind of uh uh you know, it can be a condition of approval that uh that just be added to the plans uh as far as what the assignments are going to be or that be some kind of written documentation um
that is uh on file. >> Okay, that's fair enough. And I think this is being this session is being recorded. So when we get to that if and when we get to that point that we're going to vote on this that everything that was committed to will be part of
the resolution. >> Right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Okay. Um board members, are there any questions of Mr. Jacquand or Mr. Barski who just presented?
Let me I'd like to ask another question. Um >> Yes. >> Just just so I understand it's and of Mr. Barski. So your your affordables you're assigning one space to the three bedroomedroom unit and
um the other affordable unit is the two-bedroom or is the onebedroom you're proposing? >> It's the twobedroom. >> Two bedroom. Okay. Fine. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood what the what the mix would
be. >> Are we, Mr. Barski, are we going to get a uh uh a uh a presentation of the reconfiguration of the first floor to show the three-bedroom unit?
>> Even I have it on one of my slides. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Um >> m Mr. Chairman, I see Mr. Anik has his uh electronic hand up. >> Okay. Uh yeah, we still have the the
screen. If you can take down the screen, we can see everybody. >> We're not done with the slides. We're not done with the slides yet, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. So, let's uh Mr. Aniki, if you'd like to ask your question.
>> Yes. uh if you could put up that uh slide again on trash bean removal. So um one of the comments I made was with regards to access to the ward parking spaces
the two uh if you will call it eastmost parking yeah just stay back on that. Right. >> This a new slide. >> Okay. >> I if you want me I can comment on them.
So we look >> sure. >> So there you can see roughly five spaces in that parking lot. A B C D and E. The the ones that are more difficult the most difficult to get in and out are D and E. So here you can see for space E
um that's very close to that building and that's the way the space is located today. uh you know obviously as the car enters there we'll the car will stay at a certain angle that will make it easier to get out and so you can see how the
vehicle E is backing out and kind of backing towards the vehicle A uh sufficiently there so they can move out uh in one maneuver and we show the same for vehicle D that's in the next slide
um and that vehicle D because it's a little bit closer to that vehicle A has to exit in two maneuvers. So obviously that depends a little bit on the size of the vehicle the ability of the driver but uh it does show that that space D
can get in in one maneuver and can get out in two maneuvers. So it does still work and you know obviously it's a tight situation but it is you know that's the size of that lot of the vot
property that you know is relatively uh tight already today. >> Oh yeah today it is tight. You're right. But tomorrow there'll be a building there which was is a real obstacle.
>> Right. >> Right. It's a little bit and I don't know there may be a drawing that today there's a little bit there's an island a little bit further south. So you're correct chairman um the exit the the opening today is a little bit wider than
it will be in the future. In the future it's going to be uh it's going to be more than 20 ft you know because the opening is at the location where the compact spaces are. to the opening is probably 22 ft roughly and I think today
it's probably closer to 20 or I'm not sure. >> So, so what size of what size of vehicle is used for this template? I think here for those spaces D and E we use a
vehicle you can see at the bottom for the escape. I think you see that in the graphic. Uh so obviously the right shield people if they have large vehicles they put them in A B and C. If they have smaller
vehicles they go into space D and E. >> Do you know Mr. Jacquman, are these wer spaces assigned or are they opened? >> I don't know the answer to that. Um, >> the only reason I ask is if if it's someone new every time trying to figure
out how to get into a space, it's more difficult than if somebody does it every day. >> Yeah, I imagine it's mostly employees, vital employees that park there. I don't know. I I have never seen a sign that
directs visitors to this parking area. I I'm not sure exactly how it works, but it I assume it's mostly employees. >> Yeah. Okay. That's purely up to uh WER. Sure.
Any other questions? Board members, staff, anyone? >> Okay. Um, Mr. Tar, you have the floor. >> Mr. Chair, I I think that Mr. Barski uh is not done with his slide presentation.
So I think he's up to slide 44. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Now based on the discussions with the chairman, if there are any of these that are truly engineering in nature, we can skip over them and have Mr. Kamalik
speak at the next hearing if that's the chairman. We'll >> see how things progress and then Mr. Barski can decide what he wants to do. Okay. >> Um Okay. Well, so I'll go through the comments. Um
while on-site storm water management is not required for this development, the current standards for dry wells should be applied for the relocated dry well and only storm water runoff from the roof shall be directed to the dry well. and was speaking to James Clamalak, my
civil engineer. He suggested to um add the add this to the BMP manual as part of regular maintenance um to inspect the dry well. Um another comment, next comment was demonstrate why connections to the municipal storm water sewer is
not provided coming out of that drive well dry well. Um, number one, it's not required, but more importantly, um, if I'm not mistaken, it's regulated by DOT, um, and would require DOT permits, which
we would really like to avoid. Um, 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 the municipal storm water. Um, and so this is really just
only a really small uncovered strip of parking uh at the northern boundary of uh the lot line uh which is exposed. Uh the roof runoff shall be pre-treated by leaf screens, diverters, roof
washers. Okay. Um we'll do that. A drain is proposed in the area of the outdoor trash enclosure. applicant should describe how this runoff to be is to be protected from organic waste spillage and um the same thing um that's common
practice now um uh to add to a BMP manual as part of regular maintenance and inspections and the municipality's planning improvements to Harrison Street. Um so the improvements of the sidewalk along the site should be coordinated with that
project. Yes, of course. Um, we'll do that. And the proposed sidewalks along North Harrison and NASA Street are being widened to 5T. Uh, Princeton standard detail for sidewalk and driveway apron should be incorporated into the drawings. Yes. Okay. Applicant agrees to
do that. The standard municipal sidewalk with five with five feet and is re recommended that the sidewalk meet that standard. Okay. Uh, applicant will do that. Additional canopy down light fixtures should be provided at the
ingress egress driveway. Okay. Applicant will comply with that. Um section T10B-204 requires each bicycle parking space to be accessible without another bicycle needed to move. And I'll show you in the
next slide exhibits um that we comply with that. Uh requires all covered bicycle parking facilities to be secured by means of lockable door object. And again on the next slide I'll show an exhibit with bike loops for locking. Um advise where bicycle parking signage is
to be installed. Again I'll show it on the upcoming exhibit and details of proposed bike parking space should be provided to confirm compliance. And um here's the sheet here with um the bike details.
Um, I've included the two-sided bicycle parking signage, which is uh indicated here along Harrison Street, which is required. Also illustrated is the bike storage under the awning to the front door. There's eight covered bike
parking, uh, eight covered bicycle, um, parking spaces with six loops, uh, six metal loops for locking. And I've also increased the walkway uh between the buildings from 4T to 5T to comply with T10B-204
to permit accessibility without another bicycle needing to move. Uh so people can pass. The reality is there's two entrances to the building and it's a relatively low building. There's 10 apartments in it and access from both
ways, but we did increase the walkway. Um, and on slide 48, just a closer up version of the increased width of the walkway and the covered bike bicycle layout. Uh, again, these changes meet the bicycle ordinance requirement as
stated on the municipal memo and the applicant will include these details as part of resolution compliance. Uh, we talked about Queenston. Um, uh, excuse me, we talked about the WER access. Uh, we talked about tenant move in, move
out, deliveries, and I'm happy to provide, uh, to Nathan's point some kind of documentation of how we'll handle that. Uh, one of the comments was a booster pump may be required by the fire sub code official. If it's required, we'll supply it, of course. Um, and I
talked about disposals of waste here in the in this turning template of uh with the small truck of how trash is going to get in and out. Um, for Dan Dosky's landscape memo, um,
just we agreed to all the recommendations. Um, most of the trees on site are in bad shape, dead or invasive species, and um, we'll follow all his recommendations in his report. One caveat being that there's a
recommendation to remove some invasive species behind 350 Nassau Street. It's on another property. I'm not able to take them down, but I'll certainly attempt to coordinate with the neighbors while the tree guys there to have them removed. Um,
and many of the planning memos comments overlap with um comments I just previously addressed. So, I'll just out I'll address the outstanding one. Uh the parking area clearance uh is 10 ft high. So, it's enough for a small U-Haul truck
uh and standard size delivery trucks on one of the existing elevations. Uh it was missing the two chimneys on the existing building. Those chimneys are going to remain. There's going to be no change to the existing building whatsoever. Uh there was a question
about the first floor elevation uh facade material that I wasn't clear on the drawings. It is stuckco. Um there was also a recommendation to um uh install plaque um to recognize the
historic nature um of the herer house. And I'm happy to do that and I can coordinate that with HPC for what exactly it would say. Um I will provide solar ready provisions on the flat roof. Um there was a question if there'll be
washers and dryers in every unit. Uh and there will be including the affordable units. Uh there was a question about uh transformer on the site and the electric for the site is on an overhead network. So there's no ground level transformer
that's needed. And lastly, um we talked about uh the distribution of parking. Um so, uh one space for the three-bedroom affordable unit, two for office, and three for the market rate residences.
>> Okay. I had one one question. You said the exterior material on the first floor will be stuckco. >> Yes, correct. I would suggest that under the building, the wall between the apartments and the parking be something
more durable than Stuckco because you have a a 20 foot drive aisle as opposed to a 24. So, there's a possibility that uh people will tap that wall when they uh try to back out or come in.
>> I noted Um, and uh, there were questions in uh, some of the memos about affordable housing bedroom count. And though that's regulated by an outside agency, the DCA, and they have many rules and regulations
about those requirements, um, after reading the memos, we did include a three-bedroom and two-bedroom affordable unit. Uh they are both proposed to be on located on the ground floor for actual practical and
logistical reasons that my planner Craig Rancamp will elaborate on further during his testimony. Um I'll say from a market perspective that in a walk up building like this with no elevator, the ground floor units are valued at the same and
in some cases more than the units on the upper floors. Um that's just from a market perspective, but uh Craig will elaborate on the actual affordable needs. Um and these are handicap accessible, not adaptable. >> Is it possible
>> to do you mind if I interrupt here for a second? >> Is it possible to have one of the one of the market rate units since these are both ADA compliant? Is it possible to have one of the market rate units on
the first level which will be ADA compliant as opposed to making both affordable units ADA compliant? I mean, I'm sure there are people who are don't income qualify for a low and mod unit
that might be handicapped and this is an opportunity to get one get a unit on the first level. Uh so I I think moving one of the affordables upstairs is a voward request. Um and the only
other suggestion I we don't have much detail on the three bedroomedroom but generally the NJHMFA looks for a bath and a half on a threebedroom unit as opposed to one bathroom. So, well, I mean, we can certainly
explore that. And, you know, moving the two-bedroom upstairs, I'm not totally opposed to and we can talk about that further. I'd like to hear uh uh Craig Rancamp's testimony on, you know, why he believes that these actually are the right locations for him, but I'm
certainly open to discuss that further. And actually before I'm gonna turn over the the presentation to him in a moment just quickly to provide a recap of this application. Uh we came in over a year ago with a fully compliant zoning
application. Um and the proposal and so there was no variances. There was no reason to come to the zoning board. But the proposal was not wellreceived by HPC and our neighbors. Um, and since that time, we've collaborated with Save Jugtown leadership and made some
significant concessions to the scope of the job. Um, there's less units. It's much smaller. Um, and there's some risk here obviously that I'm coming with variances as opposed to a compliant application. The new proposed building
sits further from the street. It's much smaller, less amount of units, smaller in height, less in stories. uh we believe this revision is more simplified and the size style and configuration of the fenestrations is uh better related
to the historic building and neighborhood. Um, and though this revision is more compatible and smaller in scale, again, it comes with uh the variances that we discussed, but we believe this prominent location of the site along with its historical context
is deserved of being preserved. And we work closely with our neighbors in HBC to ensure that we bring forward a proposal that is wellreceived by our neighbors in the community. And as a local Princonian myself, I felt moved to make
considerable concessions to the project and take on risk of including variances to my application for really the cause of neighborhood cooperation and and ultimately a version of essentially grassroots planning. And um so thank you
for your time and consideration. I'll I'll pass pass along to our planner uh one second please. Mr. Floyd, do you have a question? You're muted, Michael. >> Yeah. A comment I wanted to get in and
it's related to your last exchange, Mr. Barski, with uh the chairman regarding handicap accessible um and what units get it. Um, I do have a concern if it's, as you
propose, both affordable units being handicap accessessible. I don't know. Um, I, for one, I've, you know, in my youth looked at apartments that were handicapped accessessible when I didn't need it and I didn't want
the apartment. I I I it's hard for me to accept both the affordables being placed in that. So I just wanted to say that. >> Okay.
Yeah. Um Yes. Thank you, Michael. Um yeah, I guess we'll Who else is going to present this evening? Mr. Tar, Mr. Barski, >> we have Craig Rancamp, the planner, was going to wrap up with the planning
testimony. >> Oh, is this is that the final witness? >> Marina is is here. And of course, we want you to hear from our friends at Safe Jugtown who are on our team and prepared to give you remarks immediately
following Mr. Rancamp's presentation. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, how late does the board want to go that May? Well, I would see unless uh I I would think we'd have to after we finish the testimony and if there are questions from the board and
then we have public comment and then we go back. I would I would think 11 o'clock is really >> um it hit unless uh >> it's >> so that presents a Miss Casey and I are thinking the same thing. We're we're not going to finish tonight. No. Should we
uh I I want to get if if if there's engineering issues that are germanine to the board or we want to see some documents, we could present them and and come back next month to finish up. >> It's it's it's your decision what you want to present. um you know, you you've
heard you've seen the memos and heard the questions and I don't want to make a determination on, you know, who you bring before us, but again, you know, it's it's typical quite frankly to have an engineer and an architect testify. Um
and you know, it's your again it's your decision. Uh so u because the planner really likes to hear all the other testimony before he gives his his uh opinion. I just don't think it's going to help us any to
go ahead with Cray without getting Jim Kamalik before you next month and getting some of that documentation to you. Daniel's kicking me under the table here, but I just >> if you want to take if you want to take a minute and discuss this with your
client, please do. Mr. T, I suggest we take five minutes to talk about the affordable unit locations and and deal with that tonight and I'll save the real planning testimony for sure next time. >> Sure. That that might be it is interesting to the the uh the board
members. Mr. Barski's indicated a great deal of flexibility. Perhaps we could just talk about that issue of whether the two affordables be on the first floor or one should be upstairs if the board's so interested in that topic. >> Okay. >> And Mr. Tar, since you have some of your
uh I'll just say supporting testimony, do you want them to be able to speak tonight so that they don't need to come back? >> They love coming back. We're all friends and on the same team. >> Okay.
>> Um so, um I'm going to give a a brief introduction of Craig Ray and Cramp's credentials, but next time I'll go into it in more detail. But uh he's been a professional planner in New Jersey for 31 years. Uh he has a bachelor of arts
degree from University of Pennsylvania and a master's degree from Georgetown and additional educational experience at University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University. It interested me that he's a member of the American Planning Association New Jersey chapter where he's gotten the
Distinguished Service Award and it heads the housing committee of the American Planning Association for New Jersey and has for many years. Um he's a member of New Jersey Builders Association, Affordable Housing Task Force. Uh he's
made presentations nationwide and has been uh deemed an expert witness by courts and innumerable planning and zoning boards and he served as a court-appointed special master for affordable housing in New Jersey.
>> Licensed professional planner in New Jersey >> has been for 31 years. Craig, if everything that I've said is true, will you please so indicate? >> Yes. and license is current. >> Thank you. >> So Craig, we're just going to talk about
the issue of what to do on the first floor and what our thinking has been and you are an expert and we'd like to hear from you. >> I just wanted to explain why we've done what we've done and and give you some more facts and background behind it as you're working out what what you would like to see ultimately with the project.
Um, one of the things that we have to realize about the population that we serve with the price restricted units is that they have certain demographic characteristics. The principle one is that well over 70% of the households are single parent u um uh families. Um and
and there's a logic behind that. Obviously, if you have two incomes, you're far less likely to qualify. Um so we know and and the units are allocated by family size. So, we know a three-bedroom unit is always going to generate two uh children of we don't
know the ages. Um but the units will be allocated veteran >> so that there there are two kids that are going to be in that three-bedroom unit which means hikes, bikes, pram, strollers, all of that accutrant is going to be part of that unit. And
because this is a walk up building, there's no elevator. Um it's I think it's very important that that three-bedroom unit be on the ground floor. Um, so, so I think it's it's meeting the demographics that we we can expect realistically is going to occur in that unit. Two-bedroom units get can
can have a child. Uh, but sometimes they don't. And this gets into the disabled and caregiver pairings, which is the second largest um um household formation type uh in the restricted units. And that can be the the mother daughter uh configuration that we see with an
elderly mother uh and an adult daughter or a married couple with one of them disabled with one income earner. Um and and because that's a disabled population obviously being on the ground floor in a walk up building makes sense. Um so it was my recommendation that for the
demographic reasons and who who were serving with these price restricted units um it made sense to put them on the ground floor. Um, as as Daniel said earlier, the ground floor units are actually valuable. Uh, there are lots of of seniors. I'm I'm one uh who would avoid stairs and and having that ground
floor as a market rate unit is viable as well. Um, so it's not that we're we're reluctant to to say move the two-bedroom up if that's where you want to go. We just recognize that that means that there's a population in the restricted um um market that we're trying to serve
that would not be uh serviced by these units because of the stairs. So that was the logic behind uh our our choices. Uh just so you understand it as you're considering how you would like to move forward. >> Okay. >> I I understand that. I'm just I I
understand your logic relative to the three-bedroom unit and I agree with that. Although the unit is very tight. Um at least what I can see in this very small drawing. Uh but the two-bedroom unit is going to have three windows in
it. One's going to look it'd be right on the drive aisle. The other is going to look directly over the trash and the other is going to be uh separated from the adjacent building by 5T with a walk with a four or five foot walkway in
front of it. So, I don't think that's really an ideal unit. And um you know, whether it's an affordable unit or a market rate unit, it's not an ideal unit. I think and I still feel strongly
about uh having only one affordable unit on the first floor and a fully accessible or fully adaptable unit capable of housing a person with disabilities on the first floor. I would
>> Samuel's already said he's willing to do that. Um if I convince you to keep the third three-bedroom unit on the ground floor, I'm happy. That that that's the real key. >> Yeah. But again, keep in mind that I think again, it's hard to tell with a drawing this small, but I think I think
a three-bedroom unit would require a bath and a half. And when you look at that, it's again very hard to tell. When you look at what appears to be the kitchen, which is a row of cabinets opposite the bedrooms, that's a very,
very small living room for potentially four to five people. >> The bath and a half standard that you're thinking about, Mr. chairman is an HMFA standard for projects that take state money. Um it is not a requirement for inclusionary housing in private developments.
>> Okay. It's from a practical standpoint it makes sense. But your decision um but again like I said I think that living room is very small >> you know for a family. >> Mr. Mr. chairman. Um I also want to
bring up uh because you've you know just piggybacking off of what you just said. Um I do have a concern about the again the size of the that three-bedroom um and whether it is meeting um not the uh HMFA requirements but the U-Hack uh
requirement um regarding >> if I may respond um we we are a third round project which is exempt from the current U-Hack regulations as a third round project. um and and in the third round we would not be held to the
minimum unit minimum bedroom size requirements that are in the fourth round regulations. If on the other hand, you said this was a fourth round regulation, then we wouldn't need a three-bedroom unit uh because there's the small project uh exemption. So, it's either a three-bedroom unit under the third round rules with smaller bedroom
sizes or it's a fourth round project in which case we don't need a three-bedroom unit. >> And all of this is all of this is not it's a zoning issue. I I I've just got to interject the fact that this is dealt with by other agencies than the zoning board. >> So So that's fair, Mr. Mr. Tar. Uh
except, you know, we we still want to make sure that we are um um you know, we don't want this to come back and and bite us. That's why we are asking >> no. We have to make sure it complies with the law. That's a given. >> Y will ensure compliance,
>> right? Absolutely. Um but we will I mean we'll have to um on our side group together and uh just make sure that uh uh fourth or third round um that question will need to uh get uh addressed and uh have that before
>> well it's a HO2 and a HO2 was a third round item. So we'll come back to that and we we now have plenty of time to make sure that we're we can present to the board facts that we both agree upon. >> Absolutely. the importance to to end the discussion tonight. You've heard my
logic. The chairman has indicated we'll move our two-bedroom up and we'll agree we'll we'll do that and we'll be ready to present that next time. >> Okay. Well, that was >> Mr. En just have one question. So, it's your testimony then that the
both affordable units do not need to be handicapped accessible or adaptable because I'm assuming if units on the uh other than the ground floor in this building um it can't be accessible or uh
>> and you can't adaptable. Both ground floor units both have to be adaptable. And adaptable means that the floor area is there to convert a unit to use by someone in a wheelchair. There are certain
>> Okay. But if they can't get up there, Steve, then I don't there's no elevator. >> I'm talking I'm talking about the first floor units only, ground floor. >> If I can answer the question. There's not a specific there's not a specific requirement for the affordable units to both be on the ground floor and be
accessible. >> We've met the affordable housing accessibility requirements with the single unit. Um so we are able to move one of them up and it would not be accessible and that's okay under the affordable housing requirements. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> So we've taken advantage of Craig's expertise here. We're going to come back with the drawings. Um I I wonder if we could take just a few moments to to to make a list of those things which we wanted to see in uh in detail. So for
example, uh staff wanted to see the hard copies of the proposals to rent spaces from adjacent neighbors, things of that sort. Could we could we just uh hear from uh board members in particular of things which
they hadn't heard? >> Well, I think I'd like to see as an architect, I'd like to see a little more detail of this three-bedroom unit, which I think small. >> Okay. Well, and and again going to the as far
as to to confirm that the size is acceptable under the statutes under the U-Hack regulations. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. >> Uh anything with respect to the
landscaping? I think we had a pretty clear consensus with Mr. Doorski's recommendations. Uh there is >> with regard to landscaping. I don't think we discussed it in detail, but you've taken out all the screening to
the adjacent building and you put in a a picket fence which is open. So approaching this driving up Harrison Street, you're going to be looking directly at the parking. Right now it's a very nice landscape buffer and that's going to disappear. Well, it's a fence
with with some stuff grow ivy growing on it as you see in the picture >> on your property on the current 344 Nassau property is a dense planting screen >> and all that's coming out and a picket
fence which is opened is going to be separating property. >> Okay. So, it's very helpful to the applicant to hear that a picket fence is is certainly something that you're concerned about. They ought to come next month and with a replacement fence, a different type of fence. >> Well, something I personally I'd like to
see landscaping, but it's your decision. >> Well, there's a driveway on the other side. You heard the testimony. There's McAdam on either side. We We'll ask the landscape folks if there's something that could grow in that. >> Well, we can discuss this, but then again too,
you're create you're putting the you're putting the parking right on the property line. >> Understand? Understand. I mean, you're not allowing for landscaping, >> right? Uh so, uh uh traffic we've dealt with, but parking we've dealt with. There's no additional
drawings or information that the board members envision seeing there. >> Dar, just one question. Depending on where that third that three bedroomedroom unit goes, are there exterior changes to the building that
are required for it to go on the ground floor or you know on the second floor? >> I'm going to ask Marina to just speak up. She's not been scoring it. But >> the answer is no. There's no exterior changes. >> Okay. So
>> Okay. Um, I have a a question. uh before um I I don't know if you're planning to come back with uh the affordable unit moved, you know, to a a a different floor, but um is that something that
the board should weigh in on right now before you go and make those changes or um >> I think it's a good idea. >> Yeah, because I I actually am um I I felt that there's some valid reasons to
keep uh keep it as is with the two units at the lowest level. Um but I don't know how other members >> Bernice I I I don't want to speak for staff, but my understanding is that they also wanted an opportunity to confer about that issue internally.
>> Okay. >> But I don't know if uh Nathan or Derek, does that make sense? Am I correct in assuming that? >> Yeah, I think we want to Oh, sorry, Derek. No, go ahead. That's fine. >> I was just going to say that that Yeah. Yeah, that's that's correct, Karen. That uh we Yeah, we want to confirm with the
applicant what the requirement is. Uh just to make sure that all of our um uh municipal uh um requirements and uh that these units uh would be accountable uh towards our uh obligations. Um, so I
think we do want to uh confer on that internally and uh then uh discuss with the applicant as well uh to make sure that uh those requirements are being met. And Derek, if you had anything else uh sorry to sorry to interrupt. >> No, you stole my thunder. Thank you. >> So there are arguments both ways all of
which are logical and helpful and I think all we want to do in the next couple of weeks is to make sure that each of them technically complies and then work with you to choose it. It was like working with HBC on the color of the building.
It's it it there'll be a discussion. >> Mr. Tar, one question. I don't think Mr. Barski addressed there were some other suggestions in the HPC memo and there were a lot of suggestions in the environmental commission memo. Is that
something or let me rephrase that. Should we assume if they haven't been addressed by Mr. Barski that he doesn't want to comply with those recommendations or he just >> he he he wants to please the board. So I think we're going to go back through the
memos and we're going to um the the the environmental commission memo went a bit beyond the >> and I think Mr. Allesco had a number of comments too. >> That's right. Yeah. I was just looking it up, you know. Yeah, I think you got
to address his memo too. Yes, he's got a lot of comments. >> The the planning memo the more the most recent. >> Yeah, but a lot of the comments overlap with the other most of them overlap with comments I already addressed from other people's and then I added on this
section the remaining comments that didn't overlap to talk about each one individually. But I'm happy to go through it again if we need to at the next meeting. >> Well, I think we might have Mr. Allesco go through his memo so we can make sure we've got everything covered. >> Yep. So, so that was a joint memo
between uh with uh Mr. Leco and myself. Um and uh I I I think that Mr. Barski did uh address most of those as he mentioned. Uh they were um uh there were a lot of overlaps with the uh the other memos. Um however we we will also take a
look at uh you know on our side um if anything was not addressed and uh make sure that uh uh Mr. Barski and Mr. Tar are aware of that and uh that they should be prepared to um address any additional any additional issues from that uh from that memo.
>> That would be very helpful. We'd appreciate it. >> Fair enough. No problem at all with that. >> I have a question about this screen. Can I ask it a minute? >> Go ahead. >> Mr. Baski what what does it mean when you say we'll provide solar ready
provisions for a flat roof? What >> it means that the panel is sized appropriately to add the right size breakers and and the right size conduit run up >> to the roof so that if I wanted to add solar panels in the future, I wouldn't
have to be doing any demolition, ripping out of drywall, upgrading panels. So, um I could just hire the the solar panel company, but the basically infrastructure is done for them to pull all their roughs through. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And and and is something I will explore on the site at the moment. I can at least get it ready for that. >> Thank you. >> This has been very helpful. we've got we'll pull together some additional information and respond to
those memos. Um the one practical thing I heard um that I just I I wanted just to get it on the record um Mr. Ranoska said that you can't get into the commercial building from the rear.
>> Right. >> Um then you have to come in from Nassau Street side. Daniel, is that correct? >> I think he said from a wheelchair standpoint. >> No, no, no, no, no. He said there's no access to the back of the commercial building.
>> That's That's what I heard, too. I >> have the same question you have, Chris. >> So, yeah, there these there's two rear entrances and they are still accessible off of this walkway. So, there's actually two entrances off of Nassau Street and two entrances in the rear.
And again, this building's to remain totally untouched and preserved. So those rear accesses will still be available. Um, >> so the concern about delivery and so forth, the the delivery there would be the same as to the apartments through
the parking lot through the uh >> I mean I would imagine so, but um I even see a lot of times drivers pull up, they don't realize there's a parking lot in the back currently and there's spots right up the street. They park there, they run over the package, and then they
leave. So, I've seen it both ways. They don't stop in the middle of Nassau Street. They pull into an actual parking spot. So, okay. Thanks. >> If they don't stop on Nassau Street in front of the building, that's the only building on Nassau Street. They don't
stop. >> That's true, too. Yeah, >> I I think >> I think even FedEx, who has no taste or style, will go to a parking space across the street before they'll put a truck in front of that intersection.
>> Well, Mr. Chairman, you thought we could run till 11:00. I've got about five off, so I think we we used up the time as best we could. It's been very helpful to hear about anything else that you'd like to see as we come back next month. I mean, we won't know until you come
back and finish your presentation, but for sure to the extent we know now, we've given you the information. >> That's correct, and we appreciate it. >> Board members, do you have anything you'd like to add? Be take the screen down, please. >> Um, board members, do you have anything
you want to add and give uh guidance to the applicant before we close tonight? Dave, two questions and then I'll I'll of course let board members raise their questions. One, uh do we have a date
certain in terms of the the date this is being carried to? Is it February 4th? >> 11th. >> 11th. Okay. >> The meeting the February meeting is on the 11th.
>> We have two and we have one on the 25th, right? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yes. And my second question is I don't know if there's anybody in the public who wants to comment tonight or will be unable to come to the February 11th
meeting. So I don't know what your thought is on that. It is almost 11 but uh if there's anybody who want to make a brief comment uh do you want to >> anybody indicated there that they may want to speak?
I can't I'm looking at >> there are no hands. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. We asked. >> All right. So, for the benefit of people who are watching at home, this meeting is carried to February 11th. The hearing
will continue. The applicant will not be obligated to send out any further noticing. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Good night. >> Good night.