Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fars topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Princeton ZBA carries decision on screened porch FAR variance after neighbors raise visual, noise concerns
Summary
The board carried the D(4)/FAR variance application for a screened porch at 154 Prospect Avenue to July 22, 2026, after neighbors raised concerns about height, noise and the proposal functioning like an enclosed room. The board asked the applicant to consult with abutters and consider redesigns to lessen impacts.
A majority of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment voted on March 25 to carry to July 22 the application for a screened-in porch at 154 Prospect Avenue after extended debate over whether the addition’s modest floor-area-ratio exceedance would materially change neighborhood character.
The applicant is seeking relief to enclose an existing patio with screening and minor walls; the revised plan removed a rooftop deck and reduced the covered area so the proposed floor-area ratio stands about 2–2.6 percent above Princeton’s R-2B limit. "The positive criteria here are met and are clearly satisfied," said Chuck Latini, a licensed planner who testified for the applicant, arguing the change converts seasonal outdoor use into a screened, cleaner, and architecturally integrated space rather than an intensification of use.
Neighbors who live immediately behind the property said the addition would be experienced as an enclosed room, not a seasonal porch. "If there is a TV on the back wall, the lots are not that big — we will be able to enjoy or not enjoy what they are watching if we are outside," said a nearby resident who identified herself and gave her address on the record. Other neighbors cited the loss of screening trees and said the elevation of the house amplifies vertical bulk.
Board members split on the legal and planning question. Several members said the application raises gray-area issues about how Princeton counts screened porches toward FAR and whether allowing this change would create an undesirable pattern if repeated. Others said the design improvements and the planner’s testimony on reduced lateral smoke and limited public visibility argued in favor of relief.
Rather than take a final vote, the board endorsed letting the applicant try to address abutters’ concerns. Applicant counsel said the team is willing to redesign and to consult neighboring property owners directly. The board set the next hearing date for July 22, 2026, and staff said the applicant is not required to re-notice the hearing but was asked to consider contacting neighbors voluntarily.
The record shows the subcommittee of votes and memorializations earlier in the evening for other agenda items, and the decision to carry on Prospect Avenue preserves the board’s option to require a revised plan or to deny the variance at the later hearing.
