Some Undersized Lots in Princeton Offer Great -- But Possibly Painful -- Learning Opportunities

Princeton, NJ – Two recent Planning and Zoning Board decisions involving small lots cast some light on the bigger picture of land use in Princeton. One involved the subdivision of a lot on Jefferson Road to create two slightly undersized (according to zoning requirements) lots. The other was an application to create an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in a house on an undersized (again, according to zoning) on Leigh Avenue.

First the application before the Planning Board to subdivide a lot at 479 Jefferson Road, at the corner of Cuyler Road. The Planning Board unanimously approved the subdivision, which will create two slightly undersized on the original lot, 100 feet wide facing Jefferson Road by 200 feet deep along Cuyler. The small, one-story ranch house from the mid-1950s will be demolished to make room for two single-family houses.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE FREE TAPINTO.NET NEWSLETTER

At the same June 25 meeting, the Planning Board rejected the request for a variance from the front yard setback requirement on Cuyler Road. The applicant will have to slightly reconfigure the site plan to conform to that requirement.

The subdivision will create two equal lots of 100 feet by 100 feet, similar to many other lots in the neighborhood but 890 square feet less than the one-quarter acre required by the existing zoning.

The neighborhood opposition group raised the usual objections: The subdivision would set a dangerous precedent and allow other lots to be subdivided. Because of the town’s ADU ordinance two houses could become four. And four houses (according to the often stated but never factually justified belief that no family can survive in Princeton without at least two cars) means eight more cars on a street on which people walk their dogs and children ride their bikes. Finally, of course, the coup de grace of the opposition: No one in the community benefits from the subdivision other than the developer, whose interest is only to maximize his profit.

At many meetings the Planning Board lets such comments hang in the air. On June 25, however, board members responded and offered the public a different context, a bigger picture.

DOWNLOAD THE FREE TAPINTO APP FOR MORE LOCAL NEWS. AVAILABLE IN THE APPLE STORE AND THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE .

At many Planning and Zoning Board meetings, the opponents of a proposed development cling to the letter of the zoning law like a Louisiana or Oklahoma politician clutching the 10 Commandments. Stay distant from thy property line as thy neighbor stays distant from yours. “Maintain the integrity of our zoning,” one objector asked on June 25.

Planning Board member (and Council representative) David Cohen said he wanted “to make sure that people understand that zoning is not created as an ideal that universally applies everywhere within each zone.” He added, that “there's nothing pure or more correct” about lots that are compliant with the zoning than the lots that existed prior to the zoning and are not complying.

Municipal planner Justin Lesko, saying that he was building on what Cohen had said, pointed out that “Princeton came first and then zoning.” Much of what now exists in the center of town predates the zoning. In addition applications before the Zoning or Planning Board have created exceptions to that zoning. “That’s essentially why we're here today and why the Planning and Zoning Board exist -- to allow for exceptions” from a zoning code that Lesko described as a “blunt tool.”

Planning Board chair Louise Wilson addressed one of the objections to the subdivision – that allowing these two slightly undersized lots that are consistent in size with many other lots in the vicinity “somehow sets a terrible precedent. I totally disagree with that,” she said.

Most every Planning and Zoning Board meeting these days comes with an obligatory riff from an opponent on how developers will profit if allowed to proceed with their plans. “Prioritize neighborhood over profit,” the Jefferson Road opposition group pleaded on its website, saveourstreetscapes.com .

The people objecting often have high-paying jobs in some lucrative private sector job, or live in a house they have owned for years that was built by some profit-minded builder 50 or 60 years ago, conforming to zoning requirements written by some capitalist businessmen who did not always have diversity, equity, and inclusion top of mind.

So the protests are lodged. As one opponent at the June 25 meeting said, the result of approving the subdivision would be benefits that “accrue entirely to the developer.”

But instead of letting that remark once again just hang in the air, Planning Board member Nat Bottigheimer fired a shot in response: “I want to start by saying how very unsympathetic I am to any argument that is premised on the greedy developer [argument]. Unless anyone here has built their own house with their own hands, they are in a house that was developed by a developer. We owe our housing to the profit motive of that sector.”

Bottigheimer continued, “I don't understand why this sector gets singled out for vilification when it seems to be treated so differently from every other profit-seeking part of our society.” Car dealers, for just one example, are saints in comparison.

Noting the appreciation in real estate value experienced by homeowners throughout town, Bottigheimer said that, in his case, at least, “the increase in value vastly outstrips the amount of money that we put into the house. That capital gain is completely undeserved and results from the systematic structural under-provision of housing in Princeton and every other community in New Jersey. The people who benefit from that are us -- the people who are fortunate enough to own our homes now.”

While people were wringing their hands over the perceived profit margins of developers, Bottigheimer reminded the participants at the meeting there were still “design issues that we're grappling with.” They included the matter of the front yard setback variance on Cuyler Road, eventually denied by the board, and questions about the driveway placement and the impact on existing trees – especially three very large pine trees bordering the property on Jefferson Road -- and stormwater drainage.

“These are all very practical questions,” Bottigheimer said, “and we should take the temperature down a bit and treat this as the practical problem-solving exercise that it is.”

The Planning Board did as Bottigheimer suggested and addressed the practical issue of why the applicant, Estate Shore LLC (Sanjay Dasgupta, 37 Stoney Brook Road, Princeton, and Uger Kaytmaz, 62 Princeton Avenue, Hopewell) insisted on having two separate driveways instead of one shared driveway. And if there had to be two separate driveways, why did one of them have to be situated close to a line of the large trees on the boundary with the neighboring lot on Jefferson Road?

As Planning Board member and Council President Mia Sacks pointed out, “we do have an issue with our tree canopy in Princeton.” Sacks cited recent articles that showed that large multi-family developments are subject to a high level of enforcement regarding tree replacement, but that tear downs and single family home renovation projects have not resulted in same replacement level. “That's why I'm particularly focused on this case,” Sacks said, “because I know that we need to build more mid-sized housing but I want to make sure that we're not losing our trees.”

At the end of the meeting, the developer was left with a subdivided lot, but also with constraints imposed by the required setback from Cuyler Road and with the need to protect or replace the trees along the northern property line on Jefferson Road. Choices can be made, including relocating the driveway, having a shared driveway, keeping the size of the house on Cuyler the same, but having a smaller backyard, or keeping the back yard as it was presented at the hearing but having a smaller house.

A profit-minded developer should be able to figure it out.

Meanwhile on Leigh Avenue

The owners of a house on an undersized lot did not get what they wanted at the Zoning Board meeting on June 26. Hardik and Minal Patel, owner and applicant of a house at 65 Leigh Avenue, had sought a floor area ratio variance and related bulk variances to permit the conversion of a non-complying two family structure to a single-family dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). There was no record of zoning approval of the existing two-family dwelling.

Here was a proposal for exactly the kind of ADU that people imagined when the ADU ordinance was first enacted: Someone carving a small “granny flat” out of an existing single-family house; living in one part and renting the other out to a relative perhaps; or eventually selling the separate apartment as a condominium and using the proceeds to bolster their retirement income in their Social Security years.

In this case the Zoning Board treated the property as a single-family house. The proposed ADU conversion required no additions or exterior changes. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed it with a positive recommendation. And, if it were on a larger lot that enabled the existing house to meet the minimum floor area ratios and bulk variances of the zoning code, the ADU would have been permitted as of right under the new ordinance.

But that was not the case and the application went before the Zoning Board.

There were several objectors. Architect Joseph Weiss, the across the street neighbor at 70 Leigh Avenue, said his main concern was that the location is “already one of the densest neighborhoods in town. ADUs can have unintended consequences. If you allow every property to have an ADU, then it will double the density of the neighborhood.”

Weiss added that because the units could eventually be sold as two separate units, that “will send a signal to investors,” who bring with them “a strong profit incentive.”

Board attorney Karen Cayci advised the board that “form of ownership is not something the board should address.” Even with that in mind, four members of the board found enough objectionable to the plan to vote against it. Only three were in favor, and a minimum of five votes were required to pass this particular variance. The single-family house remains as is.

Architect Marina Rubina was not involved in the project at 65 Leigh, but her lawsuit against a Zoning Board decision a few doors away at 23 Leigh Avenue led to the current ordinance and the ability for non-residents to own the separate units (full disclosure – Rubina and I serve together on Princeton Future). The ADU conversion at 23 Leigh Avenue created a three-bedroom dwelling upstairs that sold for $760,000 and a ground-floor, one-bedroom unit that sold for $427,000 – both examples of missing middle housing in the Princeton market.

We asked Rubina for her opinion of the Zoning Board’s rejection of this ADU application.

“Princeton's ADU regulations, although very progressive, are very complex, intricate and have tons of limitations and restrictions that need to be closely followed and not taken lightly,” she wrote in an e-mail.

“If enough people in town believe that making ADUs easier and less expensive inside existing homes is a good idea, they should reach out to the Council and encourage them to amend the zoning code and possibly relax the strict regulation for the existing structures that predate the ADU ordinance,” she continued. “Alternatively, the Council can do nothing. This will continue to make the ‘common sense,’ adaptive reuse, less expensive projects more difficult and costly and -- although not impossible -- often not feasible.”

The big picture from this small lot, in Rubina’s opinion: It’s a “great learning opportunity.”

For more local news, visit TAPinto.net