Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Buildings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Princeton ZBA continues contested Prospect Avenue porch variance after neighbors raise scale and privacy concerns
Summary
The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment continued, to Nov. 12, consideration of a variance request to add a screened, covered rear porch at 164 Prospect Avenue after neighbors and a consulting architect said the addition would exceed the municipal floor‑area ratio and would harm privacy and neighborhood scale.
The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 22 carried the application for a covered, screened rear porch at 164 Prospect Avenue to the Nov. 12 meeting after extensive public comment and technical questions about floor‑area ratio (FAR) and neighborhood scale.
Applicant architect Tom Baio described revisions since the prior hearing: removal of a second‑floor deck use, elimination of a rooftop sauna, narrowing the first‑floor porch by one foot and raising the lower portion of the side wall (the screen base) from 2 feet to 4 feet. He told the board the applicant had reduced the proposed usable area and argued the enclosed screen would better control light, sound and fire than an unenclosed patio.
Neighbors and an architect for an adjacent property disputed that characterization and said the screened porch would read like an interior room, would be tall and relatively close to the neighboring yard, and would push the house beyond the neighborhoodcharacter and the municipal FAR standard. Neighbor Arata Polinski and licensed architect Eric Halterman said many surrounding homes are substantially smaller and that the proposed porch is closer in character to an enclosed addition than an open outdoor patio. Halterman noted vertical dimensions were not shown on the submitted drawings and said the porch roof and chimney would be visible and that sound from a mounted TV or amplified conversation could reach adjacent yards.
Municipal staff clarified FAR math and said a screened porch does not qualify for the ordinance's "open porch" exclusion. The revised plan submitted for this hearing removed the rooftop sauna and some floor area but the board and staff reported the proposal still exceeded the 30% FAR limit; staff calculated a revised FAR of roughly 32.5% under the method used by the zoning office.
After public testimony, the applicant asked for more time to coordinate revisions with neighbors and the architect and the board set a continuation to Nov. 12, 2025. The board asked the applicant to provide revised digital plans in advance so staff can post them and recommended the submission address: (1) FAR calculations and how the addition could be reduced to better fit the neighborhood scale; (2) clarified vertical dimensions/roof profile and chimney height; (3) screening and noise‑mitigation measures; and (4) precise starting elevation for the raised side wall relative to the neighbor's fence.
The hearing record will reopen on Nov. 12, 2025. The applicant agreed to provide revised plans in advance for posting to the municipal website; the board noted no additional mailed notice was required because the hearing was continued to a date certain and public participants present at the Oct. 22 hearing were informed on the record.
