Princeton board reviews two‑lot concept at 461 Mount Lucas Road; legal risk from 2015 denial weighs on discussion

The Princeton Planning Board on Jan. 8 heard a concept review of a proposed two‑lot subdivision at 461 Mount Lucas Road but took no formal action. Applicants Chuck and Amelia DeSanto presented three alternatives for dividing their roughly 2.5‑acre property, and the board’s discussion centered on whether the new proposals are legally and factually different from a 2015 subdivision the board denied.

Applicant counsel Ryan Kennedy of Stevens & Lee told the board the revised concepts are backed by a new tree survey and site analysis and said the plans ‘‘are quite different’’ from the earlier submission. The applicants’ planner and engineer, Jim Kamala of Kensho Resources, showed a preferred concept that would create a smaller lot of about 0.905 acre and a larger lot of roughly 1.59 acres, a balanced‑lot alternative with more equal areas, and a shared‑driveway option that would include a frontage conservation easement to preserve the street tree line.

Staff and legal advisers emphasized the legal principle of res judicata because the same applicants previously brought a subdivision application that the board denied in 2015. Planning staff summarized the five res judicata factors the board considers — including whether the current application is substantially similar, whether the same parties (or privies) are involved, whether conditions have changed, and whether there was an adjudication on the merits — and said the board would decide the issue if and when a formal application is filed.

Board members offered mixed reactions. Some favored a balanced‑lot layout that would create two lots closer to conformance with the R‑2 standard and argued that approach might better address res judicata concerns. Others said the central issue in 2015 was tree loss and public benefit and noted that a subdivision — even with careful lot lines — often still requires removing trees for building access. The applicants said many on‑site trees are small or dying and that their design minimizes impacts by aligning lot lines with existing tree edges.

Environmental checks were discussed: presenters identified a mapped state wetland area at the rear of the parcel that looked upland in site observations and said they would obtain an LOI (letter of interpretation/absence determination) from the state Department of Environmental Protection in a formal submission.

Procedurally, board counsel and staff said the res judicata determination is typically made when a specific application is filed; they discussed possible ways to limit upfront engineering cost for the applicant — for instance, submission waivers or a staged review — and agreed to explore those options offline. No public comments were offered during the session.

The board did not vote on the subdivision concept. Staff and applicants were encouraged to refine plans and consider the balanced‑lot and shared‑driveway options in light of the legal and planning concerns raised. If the DeSantos pursue a formal minor‑subdivision filing, the board will first need to determine whether res judicata applies and then address any variance and design standards, including Princeton code Sec. T10B‑182 on lot‑line geometry.

The planning board adjourned after the concept review with staff agreeing to follow up on procedural questions and applicants thanking the board for detailed feedback.