Humber Place hearing continued after board raises access and maneuverability concerns

The Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment continued the application for 10 Humbert Place (Z25-66710) to its March 25 meeting after extensive discussion about access from a private easement, multiple side-yard and height-to-setback variances, and functional concerns about vehicle maneuverability.

Staff summarized the application as a c(1) hardship variance request to demolish the existing two-story building down to the foundation and rebuild a two-story home of roughly 1,647 square feet atop the existing basement. Because the lot fronts on a private 16-foot-wide lane rather than a public street, staff noted that the parcel does not meet standard front-yard, lot-width or lot-depth requirements and that the application therefore requires multiple variances under the local code.

Architect Ruchi Dhar described a design that reorients the roof to shed water away from the immediate duplex neighbor and proposes one-hour fire-rated construction on the wall closest to the adjacent structure. Dhar said the proposal retains the existing foundation for sustainability reasons and seeks to reconfigure interior space while stepping some elements back from the lot line.

Board members and the chair pressed the applicant on parking and driveway access. The chair described the parking maneuver as ‘‘drive up the alley, pass the driveway entrance, and then... put it in reverse and back in and turn,” noting that the layout would be awkward and asking whether a turnaround or a different orientation might be feasible. Architect and counsel countered that the access easement and narrow lane constrain alternatives and that enlarging paved areas could trigger impervious-coverage limits.

Board members asked the applicant to analyze alternative massing and whether rotating or reorienting the dwelling in the building envelope could reduce the number of variances; the applicant agreed to review alternatives and return with additional information. The board also noted at least one member of the public had signaled an objection tied to the easement; that person was not present when the board reconvened. The board accepted the applicant’s request to carry the hearing to March 25 so the team can provide refined options and a clearer explanation of access rights and maneuverability.

The continuance preserves the record and gives the applicant time to work with staff on parking layout, impervious-coverage calculations and a clearer presentation of easement documentation or legal background for access.