Hearings on 344 Nassau Street continue after board, planners and neighbors debate parking, historic preservation and affordable‑housing layout

The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment on Jan. 14 took testimony on a major site‑plan and variance application for 344 Nassau Street (case Z25‑651) and carried the hearing to Feb. 11 to allow the applicant to supply additional materials requested by board staff and consultants.

Assistant Planning Director Nathan Foote described the site as part of the Jugtown Historic District and noted the parcel sits in the AHO‑2 affordable housing overlay. Foote summarized municipal concerns tied to the town’s fourth‑round housing obligations, UHAC requirements and parking/traffic allocation. “The important number is the prospective need … that number would be 364 units,” Foote said, explaining the overlay’s place in Princeton’s broader housing plan.

Agencies and consultants presented critiques and recommendations. The municipal Environmental Commission recommended stronger green measures (solar-ready roof infrastructure, Energy Star appliances, all‑electric systems where feasible, permeable paving and expanded bike parking). Landscape architect Dan Dobrzymilski urged removal of declining and invasive trees, highlighted narrow planting strips that limit new trees and recommended additional screening on the northern lot line; he also flagged potential conflicts with neighboring property ownership for tree replacement. David Shore, vice chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, summarized HPC’s support for the revised design conditioned on preserving the Horner House, delineating a preservation area, and adopting materials and color recommendations.

The applicant’s team — led by Daniel Barsky — described a revised, detached 3‑story building of 10 residential units behind the existing Horner House with the front building remaining offices. Barsky said the redesign (vs. a previously withdrawn, larger proposal) reduced height and massing to protect the historic context and added two deed‑restricted affordable units. He acknowledged the revision triggered variances including side‑yard setbacks (proposed 5' where 10' is required), a rear setback (10' vs. 15' required), parking‑stall counts (7 on‑site; 19 required under underlying standards, with an EV credit increasing supplied spaces to 8), compact‑space percentage, and a 20‑foot drive‑aisle in place of the 24‑foot standard.

Traffic consultant Victor Anasike observed that residential trip generation would be low but found the existing office parking in the rear is heavily used in morning peak hours (he observed nine of 16 spaces occupied during a three‑hour morning period) and recommended either leased off‑site spaces or other mitigation. Applicant experts presented turning templates and pointed to preliminary letters/agreements indicating adjacent properties could provide rental parking; staff and board asked for formal signed leases or enforceable agreements before approval.

Planner Craig Rainkamp — called as an expert — explained programmatic reasons the applicant proposed two affordable units on the ground floor: UHAC accessibility and family demographics for deed‑restricted units (the 3‑bedroom affordable unit on the ground floor helps serve families). During discussion the board requested the applicant consider moving one of the two deed‑restricted units off the ground floor; the applicant agreed to revisit the unit plan and return with revised drawings showing any relocation and compliance details.

Board members also requested more detail and written documentation on: parking assignments and formal parking leases; a civil/engineering response on stormwater and the proposed dry well; turning templates for adjacent parking access; trash and delivery operations; clarified ADA/adaptable unit scope; and responses to the joint planning/HPC/PEC memos. The board did not vote on the application and will reconvene the hearing on Feb. 11, 2026.