Board carries complex Ridgeview lot‑line adjustment; staff and neighbors press for demolition guarantees and conservation talks

The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment heard extensive testimony May 28 on a minor‑subdivision and variance application involving two contiguous parcels on Ridgeview Road owned by the Keller family. The applicant asked to transfer 0.8452 acres from Lot 14 to Lot 13 so Lot 13 would meet the minimum lot‑size requirement and to convert approximately 1,000 square feet of the second floor of a detached rear garage on Lot 13 into a dwelling unit.

Staff and multiple board experts flagged complications: Lot 14 currently contains three separate dwellings (addresses 355, 369 and 371 Ridgeview) that are nonconforming in the RA/RB zones, storage containers and evidence of business activity (a long‑running plumbing/maintenance operation), and uncertainty about whether the rear 3‑unit structure at 355 had ever been lawful as a multi‑family use. Staff advised that reducing Lot 14’s area without resolving building removals would intensify existing nonconformities and require d‑2 relief; the planning consultant said the application otherwise advances several planning goals but asked for specific conditions.

Public comment covered environmental and historic concerns: representatives of Ridgeview Conservancy and local residents urged the board to consider the wooded, high‑quality wetland and spring on the northern portion of the properties and suggested the applicant explore either a conservation easement or sale of the northern tract to the land trust. Neighbors also pressed for firm assurances — either demolition bonds or recorded conditions — that at the end of the subdivision process only one single‑family home will remain on Lot 14 and that the temporary continuation of multiple dwellings will not become permanent.

Key points of testimony and board discussion • Staff summary: Derek (staff) presented a detailed memorandum explaining the proposed lot‑line adjustment, mapping of RA/RB acreage, and that the 1,000‑square‑foot garage conversion would not meet ADU size limits (800 sq ft or 25% of the house) and therefore requires d‑1 use variance relief. Staff also asked the applicant to address whether the 355 Ridgeview structure was legally converted to a three‑unit dwelling and to describe the storage containers and on‑site business use. • Applicant presentation: Attorney Richard Schatzman and engineer Patrick Schmidt described the lot‑line adjustment that would give Lot 13 a total of about 3.0284 acres and reduce Lot 14 to about 8.6352 acres, improving lot‑area compliance for Lot 13 and reducing Lot 13’s lot coverage. The applicant (Jean Herbert Keller Jr.) testified that the family business began in 1953, is currently small‑scale, and that much of the yard has been cleaned up. • Planner’s testimony: Planner John McDonough accepted as an expert testified the subdivision would "clean up" the planning of land by creating conforming lot areas and that, under the Medici/McDonough standards, special reasons for a d‑1 variance to allow the garage dwelling could be argued (adaptive reuse, housing variety, minimal visual change). He also noted the board could attach reasonable conditions limiting future intensification. • Enforcement and timing concerns: Board members repeatedly asked for enforceable assurances before the final plat is recorded — either performance bonds to guarantee demolition of specific structures (371 Ridgeview was repeatedly named) or a condition that the subdivision cannot be perfected until only one single‑family dwelling exists on Lot 14. The applicant agreed to post a performance guarantee for demolition of 371; the board and staff discussed how to ensure the conversion of 355 (the 3‑unit structure) to a single family dwelling if the owner keeps that building.

Board action and next steps: After hours of testimony and public comment, the board closed public testimony and carried the matter for further consideration. The applicant and counsel agreed to provide additional exhibits, clarify which buildings will be demolished and which will be retained, provide documentation about whether 355 was legally converted to a multi‑family dwelling, and prepare proposed conditions (including proposed performance guarantees and deed restrictions). The board scheduled a special meeting to continue the case on July 16, 2025; the applicant accepted an oral extension for application completeness to allow the July date.