The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment has approved a new home with accessory dwelling unit at 8 Valley Road (map). The proposal was considered at the Zoning Board meeting of May 22, and the outcome was anything but a foregone conclusion. The plan had already been considered at a Zoning Board hearing in February, and failed to find approval at that time. Even with substantial revisions, the new plan, as shown above, was still considered unacceptable by several neighboring homeowners and members of the Board.
The site is a corner lot, of 0.24 acres, at the intersection of Valley Road and Witherspoon Street, within a short walk of downtown Princeton or the Princeton Shopping Center. The Princeton First Aid and Rescue Squad headquarters is to the west, and the School Board offices are to the south. Architect Marina Rubina described the design as ‘transitional’ between the institutional buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood. The plan involves a 1,900 sq ft house, at the corner, facing onto Valley Road, and one adjacent ‘accessory dwelling unit‘ (ADU), of 770 sq ft. Accessory dwelling units are allowed throughout the town, based on an ordinance passed by Princeton Council in 2020. Parking is provided through a shared driveway and a garage.
Based on feedback from the first Zoning Board hearing in February, the position of the two homes was switched, and several variances were eliminated. The proposed home and ADU do not exceed the allowed buildable area for the site. The setback requirements are so expansive, however, that it is basically impossible to build anything on the site. The plan therefore required the approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
As is customary in Princeton, several neighbors weighed in to object to the redevelopment. Stephen Rounds, of Terhune Road, said that during the meeting he had dashed out into the street with his measuring tape, to check how far back the site was from the street. He argued that the new house would not be set back sufficiently from the road. Not so, replied the architect, because the property line is itself quite far back from the sidewalk, so the total setback would be around 30 feet. Nevertheless, Mr Rounds argued that the setback was still too small, and he was not happy about construction of three buildings (the house, the ADU, and one garage) on a site that currently contains just one old house.
Gail Rounds was even more categorical, calling the plan “a disaster”. Meanwhile, Dennis Scheil, of Turner Court, also made the case that three buildings was unacceptable. “A single family house, that has sufficient setback…would be perfectly in keeping with the neighborhood”, he said. The applicant’s planner, Jim Chmielak argued that splitting the buildable area into multiple structures, instead of building one huge house, would have less visual impact on the street.
Zoning Board Chair Steven Cohen said that he would have preferred to see one single structure, instead of the multiple buildings proposed. He was also concerned about whether the setbacks were big enough. Zoning Board member Steven Schreiber was also opposed to having three buildings, and strongly objected to the design of the buildings, which he felt was not in keeping with the neighborhood. “I don’t like these plans and I don’t think they justify a variance,” he said. Zoning Board member Eve Coulson noted that ADUs are allowed by municipal ordinance, and recalled that the Zoning Board is only supposed to evaluate variances, not the design of buildings. She called the proposal “a really great plan”, noting that the architect had made substantial revisions since the first hearing.
Michael Floyd, another Board member, also expressed concerns about the accessory dwelling unit. Although ADUs are allowed throughout the town by municipal ordinance, Mr. Floyd said that he thought that they were not appropriate on corner lots. He also wished that the town had imposed stricter regulations on the allowable height of accessory dwelling units.
Mr. Schreiber proposed a motion that the Board should reject the application, but no other member of the Board was prepared to second his motion. Eventually, Board member Bernice Chen advanced a motion to approve the needed variances, seconded by Eve Coulson. Ms. Chen, Ms. Coulson, and George Stein voted “yes” on the motion to approve. Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Floyd voted “no”. With the votes at 3-2 in favor, the vote of the Chair, Mr. Cohen, became pivotal for the plan to gain approval. Mr. Cohen ultimately voted “yes”, but again noted his concerns about the number of buildings and the setbacks. The necessary variances for the plan to move forward were therefore approved on a 4-2 vote.
Related materials (via princetonnj.gov):
walkableprinceton 