To the Editor:
At last week’s Planning Board meeting on the proposed Area in Need of Redevelopment (AINR) designation for Westminster Choir College, residents raised thoughtful concerns about the future of the site’s “historic” buildings. They were led to believe the Master Plan’s call to study the original quad for potential historic designation would be acted upon.
The following day, I confirmed with the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission that no such study has been requested. At present, none of the Westminster buildings has any formal historic designation or protection. In a break with longstanding practice, there is no longer a member of the Historic Preservation Commission serving on the Planning Board — removing a key point of coordination at precisely the moment it is needed.
That disconnect is not simply about timing — it reflects a sequencing problem that places redevelopment ahead of evaluation.
The town has owned the Westminster property for nearly a year and a half. If evaluating historic significance is truly a priority, why hasn’t that work begun? Instead, the public is being asked to support a redevelopment designation that could permit demolition or substantial alteration — before the historic value of the buildings has even been formally assessed.
At the meeting, officials emphasized that this is the “correct process.” Under New Jersey’s Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, an AINR designation may precede adoption of a redevelopment plan. But permitted is not the same as appropriate. Sequencing matters, especially for a publicly owned site with no pending application or defined plan. Moving forward now places the legal framework ahead of both public engagement and basic fact-finding. While the town could act on the buildings today, advancing a redevelopment designation before completing a historic evaluation risks narrowing the options available once a redevelopment framework — and potentially a new owner — is in place.
For residents new to this process, it is important to understand what is being proposed. The consultant stated that the property meets Criteria A, D, and H under the redevelopment statute. While H cannot stand alone, Criteria A has long been understood as a finding of blight. The word may be avoided, but the substance remains. Conditions such as deferred maintenance, accessibility limitations, or functional obsolescence are being used to support that determination.
That is precisely where recent court guidance becomes relevant. Courts have made clear that redevelopment designations must rest on specific, property-based evidence demonstrating actual harm to the community — not generalized conditions or conclusions. If buildings remain viable for continued use, that cuts directly against a finding of stagnation or blight.
None of this argues against thoughtful planning for Westminster. It argues for doing that planning first: complete the historic evaluation, present real alternatives, engage the public meaningfully, and then determine whether redevelopment tools are warranted.
Westminster is one of the most significant public assets the town has acquired in decades. Proceeding with a redevelopment designation before establishing a clear, evidence-based record risks not only public trust, but the legal foundation of the designation itself.