The Princeton Historic Preservation Commission voted Dec. 1 to recommend that the Zoning Board of Adjustment grant variances for a revised development at 344 Nassau Street that the commission and neighborhood advocates say preserves the town’s Horner House while reducing the scale of earlier proposals.

At a special meeting, staff summarized a redesign for a three‑story, roughly 37‑foot building set back about 5 feet from North Harrison Street and separated from the existing Horner House by 5–10 feet. The applicant, represented by Chris Starr, said the new plan eliminates demolition, reduces unit count from 15 to 10 and keeps the existing commercial office use in the Horner House.

“We are now fully preserving the historic corner house inside and out by completely separating old from new,” applicant Daniel Barsky said, describing reduced height, fewer units and a smaller footprint compared with the prior four‑story proposal.

Elizabeth Satterfield, the commission’s staff reviewer, told members the application requires several variances and one design waiver under the AHO‑2 overlay, including side‑yard and rear‑yard setbacks, a use (d) variance to allow residential use on the new building’s ground floor, and a parking shortfall (staff cited an ordinance calculation of 19 required parking spaces versus nine provided). Satterfield also recommended that the commission’s memo to the zoning board reference the municipality’s archaeological protocol and Richard Grubb & Associates’ November 2023 preliminary screening.

Save Jugtown representatives — who opposed the earlier, larger design — spoke at the meeting and urged support for the compromise. “We have a compromise that works for everyone,” said Bruce Safran, speaking for Save Jugtown leadership, who also asked the commission to especially endorse the use variance that would allow two ground‑floor residential units in the new building.

Clifford Zink, speaking for neighborhood advocates, and resident Maggie Deppenbrock of 333 Nassau Street praised the redesigned scale and the retention of two units (20 percent) designated to meet the site’s affordable‑housing obligation. Deppenbrock said the collaborative process showed “that preservation, responsible development, and neighborhood character can all be balanced.”

Commissioners’ questions centered on three areas: parking impacts for existing office tenants and neighboring streets, precise delineation of the historic preservation area, and subsurface protections. Several members asked the applicant to show how the preservation area would be delineated so that the Horner House and its immediate setting are protected. On archaeology, staff reiterated RGA’s recommendation that a ground‑penetrating radar (GPR) survey be completed prior to ground disturbance and that an archaeologist be onsite for GPR or be present during any subsequent subsurface work.

“It is recommended that an archaeologist be on‑site during the GPR survey work,” Satterfield said during the staff presentation, explaining how the ordinance’s historic‑sites protocol should be incorporated into the commission’s memo to the zoning board.

Members also requested additional product and lighting specifications, details for the proposed stucco treatment and window casing, a clearer landscape plan with suggested species substitutions (staff suggested replacing a proposed Washington hawthorn because of thorns), and confirmation on whether relocated arborvitae are viable. The applicant said he would provide updated drawings, product sheets and coordinate with the town’s landscape consultant.

After discussion, a commissioner moved that the HPC support the variances with the staff‑recommended conditions; the motion was seconded and carried. The roll call recorded at least four affirmative votes and one negative vote in the transcript. The commission agreed to transmit a memo to the Zoning Board of Adjustment that endorses the variances while noting the commission’s conditions and concerns, including parking impacts, the preservation‑area boundary, GPR and archaeological oversight, and product/landscape details.

The zoning board hearing date was not set at the meeting; staff and applicants said they expect the application to appear before the Zoning Board early next year. The commission asked members or liaisons to attend and affirmed it will include its recommended conditions in the written memo to the board.