Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves ADU behind 8 Evelyn Place after sight‑line and tree review
Summary
After revisions following a March 2025 concept review, the commission approved construction of an ADU and connecting breezeway at 8 Evelyn Place, citing reduced height and sight-line testing showing minimal visibility from Evelyn Place; staff will confirm arborist findings about trees slated for removal.
The Princeton Historic Preservation Commission voted Feb. 24 to approve an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) behind the existing garage at 8 Evelyn Place, along with a covered breezeway connecting the existing house to the garage.
Homeowner Jim Beslady told the commission the project is intended to provide single-level living for his elderly mother and to preserve the historic character of the subdivided shingle‑style dwelling. "We greatly appreciate the time and comments from the board," Beslady said during his introduction.
Architect Dan (presenting for the applicants) said the design team removed a previously discussed carport and reduced the ADU's height by 2 feet 3 inches so that, when viewed from the cul‑de‑sac on Evelyn Place, the ADU would not project above the existing garage ridge. The team also performed an on‑site balloon sight‑line test to demonstrate street-level visibility; Jim Beslady participated in the test.
Staff presented a preservation‑plan review noting the property (Block 34.01 Lot 8) sits in the Jugtown Historic District and that the ADU is largely set back and "minimally visible from public right of way." Staff recommended the commission evaluate compatibility with Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and consider height, roof form, materials and tree impacts in its decision.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about tree removals after noticing a maple present in earlier reviews was proposed for removal and a large oak at the rear appeared on the removal list. The applicants said an outside arborist and municipal staff assessed the trees and concluded the maple was unsafe; applicants agreed to re‑examine the oak if commissioners requested it. Chair Sherr and others emphasized the commission's interest in protecting viable mature trees where feasible.
Commissioner Julie Capizzoli moved to approve the application "as presented"; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll call of affirmative votes from Mister Shatzkin, Miss Capizzoli, Miss Friedman, Miss Kozhevnikova and Chair Sherr. Staff will confirm arborist findings and file the approval with permitting records.
The commission’s action allows the applicants to proceed to subsequent permitting steps consistent with the approved preservation plan.
